search_institutions

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral traits, but it only says 'Search supported financial institutions.' It does not disclose pagination behavior (limit/start), search algorithm (fuzzy/exact), authentication needs, or any side effects. The parameters hint at pagination, but the description itself is silent.

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 concise (one sentence) and front-loaded, but it sacrifices needed detail. It earns its place but provides minimal value.

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 a search tool with three parameters and no param descriptions, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits how search results are ordered, what fields are returned (though output schema may cover this), and pagination mechanics. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 0%, yet the description adds nothing about the parameters (search, limit, start). It does not explain that search is a keyword filter, limit caps results, or start indicates offset. This forces agents to guess parameter meaning.

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 searches supported financial institutions, using a specific verb ('Search') and resource. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_institution or get_certified_institutions, which could cause confusion.

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 such as get_institution (by ID) or get_institutions_by_routing_number. The description lacks any usage context or exclusion criteria.

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