Search Institutions by Name

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is safe. The description adds that results are 'ranked by AUM descending,' which is a behavioral trait not in annotations. It does not cover pagination or rate limits, but these are partially addressed by the parameter schema (limit, offset). Overall, it adds value beyond annotations.

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 redundancy. It starts with the core action and lists return fields, then provides usage guidance and an example. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure is front-loaded.

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 that the output schema exists (documenting return values) and the parameter schema is fully described, this description completes the picture by explaining when to use the tool, what it returns, and how results are ordered. No gaps remain.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the search term examples and purpose but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. It is adequate but not exceptional.

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 the tool searches institutional investors by name, explicitly mentions the returned fields (CIK, name, AUM, holdings count, latest filing period), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_institution_*' which require a specific identifier. The verb 'search' and resource 'institutional investors (13F filers)' are precise.

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: 'Use this to find a specific fund or investment manager when you know part of their name' with examples. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it, but the context strongly implies that for known identifiers, the 'get_institution_*' tools are alternatives. The guidance is sufficient but lacks explicit exclusion.

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