Institution status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond the annotations by specifying what the lookup returns and framing it as a pre-routing check, which helps the agent understand the tool's role and side-effect-free nature.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, gives a concrete example, lists the useful output fields, and then provides a clear usage heuristic. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with read-only/idempotent annotations and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It identifies the required input, the purpose, the returned data categories, and the appropriate usage context, so an agent can successfully invoke it without additional clarification.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by giving a concrete example: 'e.g. "233" from R-233-2993204', which clarifies the expected index format beyond the raw '^\d+$' pattern. It does not fully define what an index is, but the example is sufficient for a single-parameter 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 states a specific action ('Look up a CIMS institution by index'), the resource, and the key returned information: active status, supported rails, and attestation policy. It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like cims_status, relying on the fields and example to imply the distinction.

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 clear usage context: 'Check before routing to an unfamiliar institution.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, though it does not mention exclusions or name alternative tools for when this lookup would be inappropriate.

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