get_trial_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a query operation, implying it's likely read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't explicitly confirm this or describe other traits like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what constitutes '完整详细信息' (complete detailed information) in the response. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (one required parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It lacks output schema information, so the agent doesn't know what '完整详细信息' entails in the response. Combined with no annotations and minimal behavioral context, this leaves the description incomplete for optimal agent use, though it meets minimum viability for a simple query tool.

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 description adds minimal semantic context beyond the input schema. It mentions the parameter '注册号' (registration number), which aligns with the schema's 'registration_number' property. However, with 100% schema description coverage (the schema already documents the parameter as '临床试验注册号，如 'ChiCTR2400084905''), the description doesn't provide additional details like format examples or usage nuances. This meets the baseline score of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: '根据注册号查询临床试验的完整详细信息' (Query complete detailed information of clinical trials based on registration number). It specifies the verb ('查询' - query) and resource ('临床试验的完整详细信息' - complete detailed information of clinical trials), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_trials', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_trials' or clarify scenarios where this tool is preferred (e.g., for looking up specific trials by exact registration number versus broader searches). There's also no information about prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context implied at best.

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