list_institution_accounts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' indicates a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose any potential side effects, authentication requirements, or access scoping (e.g., whether only user-visible accounts are returned). It provides basic transparency but lacks additional 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?

The description is one short sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. It contains no irrelevant information and is perfectly sized for a simple list operation.

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 (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It clearly states the tool returns all accounts for an institution, but because there is no output schema, it could benefit from a hint about the return format or any pagination behavior. Still, it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward list tool.

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 description coverage is 100% with a clear description for institution_id ('The institution ID'). The description 'for a specific institution' only restates the parameter's role, adding no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'accounts' and a clear scope ('for a specific institution'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_accounts and list_transaction_accounts. It clearly states what the tool does in a single, unambiguous sentence.

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 the tool should be used when you need accounts belonging to a particular institution, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like list_accounts or list_transaction_accounts. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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