find_institutions_by_criteria

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

In the absence of annotations, the description effectively discloses key behaviors: mode-dependent sorting, subsidiary handling (exclude_subsidiaries, use_classification_org_type), and a disclaimer that results are a simple sort not a basis for evaluation. However, it does not cover error handling or data freshness.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose, followed by parameter explanations in a structured, bullet-like format. It is relatively efficient but slightly verbose with multiple sentences; overall well-organized.

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?

Given 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers many aspects but has gaps: missing explanation of year_from/year_to behavior, no description of output format beyond 'simple sort', and no mention of error handling. Could be more complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining mode options, item_query examples, and filter parameters (org_type, ministry, exclude_subsidiaries, use_classification_org_type). It adds context for item_query values. Missing explanations for year_from, year_to, and n are partially mitigated by defaults.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as condition-based institution screening for top/bottom indicators or growth rates. It specifies three modes (top_n, bottom_n, growth_rate) and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_institutions and get_institution_metrics which serve different purposes.

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 details on parameter usage (mode, item_query, filters) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_institutions. It implies usage for ranked screening but lacks direct guidance on exclusions or when not to use.

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