List cohorts

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 useful context about return contents (full names and associated PGS IDs), but says nothing beyond that about pagination behavior or result volume, which matters for a list endpoint capped at 250 per page.

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: the first defines the resource and payload, the second gives the actionable filtering hint. No filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 usefully names the returned fields, and pagination is fully handled by the schema. The only minor gap is the absence of any guidance on how this relates to get_cohort for single-symbol retrieval.

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 limit, offset, and cohort_symbols are fully documented in the schema itself. The description reinforces that cohort_symbols performs a targeted lookup, but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific resource (study cohorts referenced by the PGS Catalog) and what is returned (full names plus PGS IDs used for development or evaluation), with concrete examples. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling get_cohort, which fetches a single record.

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?

The final sentence, 'Provide `cohort_symbols` to look up specific cohorts,' implies the list-all vs. filter-by-symbol usage pattern. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over the sibling get_cohort (single-record lookup), leaving the routing decision to inference.

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