Get a polygenic score by ID

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 usefully enumerates the categories of data returned (scoring-file URLs, harmonized builds, samples, ancestry, license), but says nothing about record size, truncation, or how the compact-vs-full projection behaves.

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?

A single dense sentence with the identifier and return contents front-loaded; the long field enumeration is justified because there is no output schema. Slightly list-heavy but 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 necessary work of telling the agent what a record contains, which is exactly what a retrieval tool needs. A minor gap: it does not hint that the default response is a compact projection and that 'full' returns the complete record.

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 pgs_id, full, and fields are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning about the 'full' or 'fields' parameters, so the baseline 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?

Specific verb ('Retrieve'), specific resource ('one polygenic score'), and explicit scope ('by PGS ID') with a concrete example. The 'one ... by ID' framing naturally distinguishes it from the search_/list_ siblings without opening their schemas.

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: the caller must already know a PGS ID, so this is a lookup-after-search tool. However, the description never explicitly says to use search_scores first if only a trait or publication is known, nor names any when-not condition.

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