Search reported performance metrics

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, open-world search. The description adds useful behavioral context about the returned record contents: metric estimates with confidence intervals, evaluation samples with ancestry and cohorts, and adjusted covariates.

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?

The description is two focused sentences: the first defines the search operation and filters, the second describes the result payload. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant or filler text.

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 helpfully explains what each result includes. Combined with the fully documented input schema and read-only annotations, it is largely sufficient for correct invocation, though it could briefly note pagination defaults or the compact-vs-full projection behavior.

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 the schema already documents all eight parameters thoroughly. The description adds a useful conceptual mapping between the searchable dimensions and the likely parameters, but does not explain pagination, field selection, or other parameter behavior beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Search reported PGS performance metrics', and lists example metrics plus the searchable dimensions. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling get_performance_metric by being a search operation, but it does not explicitly call out that sibling or other alternatives.

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?

It states that metrics can be searched by score, publication, or PubMed ID, which implies when the tool applies. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance or direct comparison to sibling tools such as get_performance_metric or search_scores.

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