Get a PGS Catalog release

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and external-data profile is covered and the description need not repeat it. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that omitting release_date silently returns the current release rather than erroring. It says nothing about record size or the fact that the `full` flag can produce a verbose payload, which is the main behavioral risk here.

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 tight sentences with the return contents front-loaded and the usage hint second. No filler, no redundancy.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does list the returned entities well. The gap is that it never signals the expandable payload — `full` and `fields` can radically change response size, and the compact-vs-complete distinction is left entirely to the schema text.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates release_date's default behavior, which the schema already documents, but says nothing about `full` or `fields` — the two parameters that most change the shape of the response.

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 (get release) and enumerates exactly what comes back: release date plus counts and IDs of newly added scores, publications, performance metrics, and traits. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_releases, which is the main ambiguity for an agent scanning the toolset.

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?

"Omit `release_date` to get the current release" gives a concrete condition for the default (no-argument) invocation. It offers no guidance on when to choose this over list_releases, and no exclusions, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives coverage.

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