Query OpenTrials (Stub)

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only notes 'open access'. It fails to mention that the tool is read-only, rate limits, or what happens with empty results. Minimal transparency.

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?

Extremely concise, but at the cost of clarity. It is effectively a single phrase, which is too brief to be helpful. A good description is concise but still informative; this one is under-specific.

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?

Given the simplicity of one required parameter and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the scope of the query, the nature of results, or how it differs from other trial-related tools like search_clinical_trials.

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 covers the 'query' parameter with description 'OpenTrials query', but the tool description adds no further meaning. No examples, format hints, or constraints are provided, offering no value 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?

The description 'OpenTrials merged trial data & sponsors (open access)' is vague about the tool's action; it reads like a description of the data source rather than a tool purpose. The verb 'query' is implied by the name but not stated. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like query_drugbank or query_dbgap.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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