Get PGS Catalog info and citation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the payload is static catalog-wide metadata (version, counts, citation, Ensembl build, terms of use), which signals there is no user-specific or paged data; however it says nothing about response shape, caching, or whether counts are point-in-time.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose; the long enumeration is dense but every item is a distinct returned field, so little is wasted. The usage sentence is placed last, which is the right slot.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so field by field, including the citation components and terms of use. Minor gaps remain about the response container/format and freshness of counts, but nothing an agent needs to decide to call it is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, giving a baseline of 4, but the schema is empty and offers nothing for the description to complement. The description does not need to explain parameters here, though it also adds no invocation semantics (e.g., no arguments required or accepted) beyond what the empty schema shows.

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 a specific verb (Get) and names the resource (PGS Catalog metadata), then enumerates exactly which fields are returned: API version/changelog, latest release date, counts, citation, Ensembl version, and terms of use. That distinguishes it from search_* and get_* single-record siblings, though it does not explicitly separate itself from get_api_versions or list_releases, which appear to overlap on version/release data.

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?

One usage cue is given: 'Use this to cite the catalog correctly.' That implies the citation need, but there are no when-not conditions and no named alternative (e.g., use get_api_versions if you only need the API version, or list_releases for release history), even though such siblings exist.

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