create_institution

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'create', which implies mutation, but does not mention required permissions, side effects, idempotency, or any other operational details. The lack of any additional context leaves the agent guessing about the tool's behavior.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than concise efficiency. It merely rephrases the tool name in a sentence, adding no informative content. A single sentence that restates the name does not earn its place, as it provides zero value beyond the tool name itself.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema), the description should at least clarify what an institution is or the purpose of creation. The current description is completely inadequate: it does not explain the domain, the effect of the operation, or how it relates to sibling institution tools. This leaves the agent with no useful context for invocation.

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 input schema already documents both parameters ('title' and 'currency_code') with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Create a new institution' is essentially a direct restatement of the tool name 'create_institution'. It provides no additional detail, such as what an institution is or what creating one entails, and does not distinguish it from sibling tools beyond the verb already present in the name. This is a tautology rather than a meaningful explanation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or why one would create an institution rather than update or list one. The description is purely imperative and offers no context for selection.

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