Get a cohort by symbol

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

Annotations already cover the read-only and open-world nature, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: symbols are not unique, so a single lookup can return multiple matches, and each match carries a full name and associated PGS IDs. That prepares the agent for a multi-result response, which the annotations do not convey. It stops short of saying what happens on zero matches or how paging interacts with multiplicity.

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, both load-bearing, with the lookup action and examples front-loaded and the non-uniqueness caveat immediately after. No restatement of the name or title and no filler.

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, the description does the right work by naming what comes back (full names, PGS IDs) and warning about multiple matches. Missing only edge-case behavior such as empty results or guidance on paging through many matches, which keeps it just shy of complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: cohort_symbol is not a unique key, which changes how the agent should interpret and handle the result set. Pagination params (limit/offset) are only explained in the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Look up a cohort by short symbol') with concrete example symbols, so the agent knows exactly what entity is being retrieved. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling list_cohorts, leaving the search-vs-list distinction to be inferred from naming convention.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrasing 'by short symbol' and the examples, which signal this is a targeted lookup rather than a bulk listing. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_cohorts, nor any prerequisite or fallback guidance.

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