Search PGS Catalog publications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe external read. The description earns some credit for disclosing the return payload (citation fields plus developed/evaluated PGS IDs), which matters because there is no output schema. It says nothing about the compact-vs-full projection tradeoff or paging behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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, no filler, with the searchable keys front-loaded and the return content second. Nothing is redundant with the name or title.

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?

For an eight-parameter, zero-required search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: it is a filtered search and it returns citation data plus linked PGS IDs. Missing the interaction between pgs_id/pgp_ids filtering and the paging parameters is a minor gap, not a blocking one.

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 every one of the eight parameters is already documented upstream (full, pmid, limit, offset, fields, author, pgs_id, pgp_ids). The description only restates three of those keys at a high level and adds no syntax, precedence, or combination rules. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 ("Search") plus resource ("publications in the PGS Catalog") and enumerates the three usable lookup keys (author, PubMed ID, score ID). It also names what comes back (citation data plus developed/evaluated PGS IDs). It never explicitly contrasts itself with the singular get_publication sibling, so an agent must infer the search-vs-fetch split from the names alone.

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?

Listing the accepted lookup keys implicitly tells the agent this is the entry point when you have an author, PMID, or PGS ID rather than a publication ID. However, there is no explicit "use get_publication when you already know the publication ID" routing statement and no guidance on which key to prefer or how the keys combine.

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