get_institutions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states what the tool retrieves ('connected financial institutions and credential status') but does not explicitly say whether it is read-only, whether it requires existing connections, or what side effects (if any) exist. The 'get' verb implies read-only, but the description does not confirm this or provide any 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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the verb 'Get'. Every word adds meaning, with no filler or redundancy. It is an ideal length for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks some context. It does not explain what 'credential status' entails, whether the result is a list or single object, or any nuances about connected institutions. Since there is no output schema, the description should offer more detail about the return value and any relevant behavior, but it remains minimally viable.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed since the input schema is empty. The description's focus on output (institutions and credential status) is sufficient for a parameterless tool.

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 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource: 'connected financial institutions and credential status.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_accounts or get_tags by focusing on institutions and their credential state. The purpose is unambiguous and directly matches the tool name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or mention of sibling tools such as get_accounts or refresh_accounts. The context of when this tool is appropriate is entirely absent.

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