Search sample sets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context by stating what each result contains (participant counts, ancestry breakdowns, age/follow-up data, cohorts), which matters since there is no output schema.

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 search purpose front-loaded and the payload description second. No filler, though the parenthetical definition of sample sets is the only mildly expendable element.

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 read-only search with no output schema, the description covers the filtering axes and the shape of returned records, which is the key missing piece the schema cannot convey. It omits pagination/expansion behavior, but the schema documents full, fields, limit, and offset thoroughly.

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 coverage is 100%, so all eight parameters are already documented, including the full/fields/limit/offset paging controls. The description's mention of the three filter axes (score, publication, PubMed ID) maps onto pgs_id, pgp_id, and pmid but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 (search PGS sample sets) and defines the domain concept parenthetically as the participant groups used to evaluate a score. This clearly separates it from the single-record get_sample_set sibling, though that sibling is never named.

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 search-by score, publication, or PMID framing implies when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or pointer to alternatives such as get_sample_set for a known ID, or search_scores for related lookups.

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