oa_search_institutions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, open-world, and idempotent. The description adds a return-shape detail ('unified envelope (record_type institution)') that annotations don't carry, but this phrase is jargon and no behavior like pagination defaults or rate limits is disclosed. It adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded. The second sentence gives a concrete use case, though 'unified envelope' is cryptic and slightly weakens clarity. Overall there is no redundant text and the structure is efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only search endpoint with rich annotations and an output schema, the description supplies the key missing 'why' (finding institution IDs) and identifies the record type. It doesn't need to explain return values because an output schema exists; the only notable gap is lack of explicit sibling routing, which is partly covered by the stated use case.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds no parameter-level guidance: it doesn't mention country_code, page, per_page, or the query string semantics beyond what is already in the schema. Since schema description coverage is effectively low and the description does not compensate for page/per_page, an agent must rely entirely on field names and the sparse schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('OpenAlex institutions'), and the phrase 'useful for finding institution IDs to filter work searches' distinguishes it from sibling search tools like oa_search_works, oa_search_authors, and oa_search_sources. The agent can clearly identify what this tool does and when it is relevant.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a clear context: use this tool to find institution IDs for filtering work searches. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the intended scenario is unambiguous and practical.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.