get_study_info

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

The annotation readOnlyHint already discloses that this is a safe read operation. The description's verb 'Retrieve' is consistent and adds no additional behavioral traits, such as pagination, field selection behavior, or response structure. It neither contradicts annotations nor adds significant transparency context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without redundant phrasing or irrelevant details.

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?

The tool is simple, read-only, and has an output schema, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it lacks usage guidance and parameter semantics, which are partially compensated by the schema's parameter names but not by descriptions. The description is minimally viable but leaves room for improvement in guiding an agent.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the parameters. 'study_id' is relatively self-explanatory, but 'fields' is ambiguous—it could mean field selection, filtering, or something else. The description offers no hints about what 'fields' controls or how to use it.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('metadata and cohort details for a GWAS study'), making the tool's purpose immediately identifiable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on study-level metadata rather than credible sets, diseases, or drugs.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or context like 'use for study-level metadata; for variant info use get_variant_info.' The only implicit cue is the tool name.

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