search_clinical_trials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds a crucial safety disclosure: 'PHI-safe: only condition strings transmitted externally.' This tells the agent that the tool does not send protected health information beyond the condition, which is critical in a medical context. It also implies a read-only search. However, it does not elaborate on other behaviors like rate limits or error handling, so it gets a 4.

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 sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then add usage and safety context. There is no fluff or redundant content; every clause adds value.

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 output schema covers the return structure, so the description needn't explain return values. It covers the primary trigger and safety. However, it omits explanations for three of four parameters and does not describe the relationship with search_guidelines beyond the trigger. This is a clear gap, making the description adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning all four parameters (condition, reason, loinc_codes, max_results) lack descriptions. The description only mentions 'condition', which maps to one parameter. The remaining parameters are non-obvious, and the schema only provides defaults and types, not semantics. Thus the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 starts with a specific action verb 'Search' and clearly identifies the resource (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the scope (recruiting trials matching a condition). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_guidelines or list_observations, which are about different resources or actions.

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 explicitly states when to call the tool: 'Call when search_guidelines returns validation_warnings (flagged observations) to surface trials the patient may qualify for.' This gives clear situational context, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or present alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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