trials_search

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 mentions the data source and return fields, but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior, or potential side effects. The description is insufficient for a search tool with 5 parameters and no output schema.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and scope. The first sentence covers the core functionality, and the second adds important context about the data source. There's no wasted language, though it could be slightly more structured with clearer separation of search parameters versus returned data.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic completeness by stating purpose, parameters, and data source. However, it lacks important context about return format, error conditions, limitations, and how results are structured. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally provide more detail about what 'trial details' includes.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly with descriptions and enum values. The description mentions the three main search parameters (condition, code, intervention) but adds minimal semantic value beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain parameter relationships or provide usage examples.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('search active clinical trials') and resources ('by condition, ICD-10 code, or intervention'), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on codes, drugs, providers, or other medical functions. It specifies the data source (ClinicalTrials.gov) and what information is returned (trial details including NCT ID, phase, enrollment, eligibility).

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 usage context by mentioning search parameters (condition, ICD-10 code, intervention) and the source database, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations compared to other search methods, or relationships with sibling tools like disease_surveillance or drug_lookup.

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