search_trials

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses ordering ('newest registrations first'), the exact shape of each returned entry, default behavior for status, and the empty-result behavior ('empty list with a note when nothing matched'). Nothing surprising is left hidden.

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 detailed but every sentence earns its place. The purpose is front-loaded, the Args section is a clean labeled list, and the Returns section clarifies edge behavior without redundancy.

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 a search tool with one required parameter and no annotations, the description is complete: it covers all parameters, return fields, default behavior, empty-case behavior, and how to proceed to get_trial for more detail. An agent can invoke it correctly without external context.

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%, so the description compensates fully. Every parameter is explained with meaning, examples, allowed values, defaults, and constraints: condition format, status choices, optional location with examples, and max_results range with default.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find clinical trials studying a condition, newest registrations first.' It clearly distinguishes search_trials from its siblings like get_trial, and the use-case phrasing ('are there trials for X') reinforces that this is a lookup/search tool rather than a fetch-single-record tool.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool ('Use this to answer questions like...') and names the follow-up alternative: 'Call get_trial with an NCT number from these results for eligibility criteria and full details.' It also gives practical guidance such as preferring medical names and the meaning of status values.

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