get_institution

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not add extra context such as error handling, authentication requirements, or return format. It is not misleading, but it offers no more than what the verb alone suggests.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the essential operation without any redundancy.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It clearly identifies the resource and retrieval method. However, it does not explicitly state what the response contains, which would be expected without an output schema. Still, for a 'get by ID' tool, this is quite adequate.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with description 'The institution ID'. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, 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 clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('PocketSmith institution'), and the scope ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_institutions' (listing) and 'update_institution' / 'delete_institution' (mutations).

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 implies usage for retrieving a single institution when the ID is known, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like 'list_institutions'. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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