list_institutions

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It describes the basic behavior (list/search) and provides an example, but does not disclose pagination behavior, default sorting, or edge cases like empty results. Acceptable for a simple list tool.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose and link to a sibling tool, the second provides a usage example. Highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 no output schema and simple parameters, the description sufficiently covers the tool's role and invocation. It could mention the returned data includes IDs and names, but the lack is not critical. Completeness is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The description adds the example of using 'search' with a partial name, which slightly augments the schema, but page and per_page are not elaborated beyond their 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists/searches government institutions and resolves names to numeric IDs used by search_procurement. It is specific about the verb and resource, and explicitly links to a sibling tool, distinguishing its purpose.

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?

Provides context for when to use (resolving names to IDs) and how to use (pass 'search' with partial name). However, no explicit when-not or alternative tools mentioned, though the sibling list tools are for different entities.

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