Search Clinical Trials

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'search', which implies a read operation, but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, result limits, or whether it supports sorting. The presence of an output schema helps but is not mentioned.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff. It is concise but could benefit from slightly more structure to separate the two search methods. Still, it is appropriately sized for a simple search tool.

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 tool's low complexity (3 optional params, no required, 100% schema coverage, output schema exists), the description is minimally complete. However, it misses behavioral context like pagination and result limits that would help an agent use it effectively.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides—it merely restates that search is by keyword or filter. No additional parameter constraints or usage hints are given.

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?

Description clearly states the action 'Search' and the specific resource 'ClinicalTrials.gov for registered trials'. It also mentions two modes: keyword or advanced filter. This explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools that query other databases like ChemBL, PubChem, or DrugBank.

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 implies use for searching clinical trials, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No 'when-not' or specific context is provided, leaving the agent to infer based on the name and sibling list.

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