gbif_registry_search_institutions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of pagination behavior (limit/offset), result volume, or what a result record contains — so it earns no extra credit.

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?

Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler; the second sentence usefully enumerates the institution types returned. It is well-sized, though the second sentence does not add routing or behavioral 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?

Annotations carry the safety profile and the schema fully documents all parameters, so the core need is met. Still, with no output schema, the description could reasonably say what a result contains (name, code, city, country) or note pagination via limit/offset; that gap keeps it merely adequate.

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 each of the six filters (q, city, code, limit, offset, country) documented with examples and constraints. The description contributes no additional parameter semantics, 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?

Names a specific verb (Search) and resource (scientific institutions in GRSciColl) and enumerates the kinds of entities returned (museums, herbaria, universities). However, it does not distinguish 'institutions' from the closely related sibling tools gbif_registry_search_organizations and gbif_registry_search_collections, so an agent must infer which registry entity type it needs.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus gbif_registry_search_organizations, gbif_registry_search_collections, gbif_registry_get_institution, or gbif_registry_list_nodes. The description describes the content available but gives no routing guidance or prerequisites, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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