Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_trial_detailsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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. While it clearly describes what information will be returned, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or response format. The description states what data is included but not how the tool behaves operationally.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is efficiently structured as a single sentence that clearly states the purpose and enumerates the specific data fields included. It's appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and no annotations. While it could be slightly more concise by removing some redundancy in the field list, every element serves a purpose in clarifying what information will be returned.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (retrieving detailed clinical trial information), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It clearly states what information will be returned but doesn't address behavioral aspects, usage context, or response structure. For a data retrieval tool with no output schema, more detail about the return format would be helpful, but the description covers the essential purpose.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'nctId' well-documented as 'NCT编号，例如：NCT04852770'. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain the NCT ID format further or provide additional context about parameter usage. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '获取指定临床试验的详细信息' (get detailed information for a specified clinical trial). It specifies the verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('临床试验的详细信息' - clinical trial details), and lists specific data fields included (PI researcher info, hospital locations, contact info, study description, criteria, outcome measures). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'search_clinical_trials' or 'search_by_location' which likely return different types of results.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  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 the sibling tools at all, nor does it explain that this tool retrieves detailed information for a specific trial (using NCT ID) while the search tools likely return lists of trials based on criteria. There's no context about prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate use cases.

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

• search_by_locationB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: default query settings (recruiting status, 3-month updates, 30 most relevant results), which helps the agent understand the tool's behavior beyond the input schema. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or output format, leaving gaps in behavioral context.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes key default behaviors. It avoids unnecessary details, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from default settings for clarity.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the purpose and default behaviors, but lacks information on output format, error cases, or how results are ranked. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to be fully complete.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  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 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by implying the tool uses default values for some parameters (e.g., status, months, pageSize), but does not provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema offers. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '根据地理坐标搜索附近的临床试验' (search for nearby clinical trials based on geographic coordinates). It specifies the verb ('搜索' - search) and resource ('临床试验' - clinical trials), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_clinical_trials' or 'get_trial_details', which likely have different search criteria or retrieval methods.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage context by mentioning default settings (e.g., recruiting status, 3-month updates, 30 results), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_clinical_trials' or 'get_trial_details'. It provides some operational context but lacks clear guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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

• search_clinical_trialsA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: default query scope (recruiting status, past 3 months), sorting order (by update time descending), result limit (30 most relevant), and pagination support. It also mentions practical recommendations (e.g., '3个月内的更有可能还在招募'). However, it doesn't cover error conditions or rate limits.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is efficiently structured in two sentences: first states purpose and defaults, second lists supported search criteria. Every element adds value with zero waste, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a search tool with 8 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate context about behavior and defaults. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe the structure or format of returned results, which is a significant gap for a search tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  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 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions the same search criteria (keywords, disease type, location) but doesn't provide additional semantic context or usage examples not already in the schema descriptions.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '搜索临床试验' (search clinical trials) with specific scope (recruiting trials updated in the past 3 months, returning 30 most relevant results). It distinguishes from 'get_trial_details' (which likely retrieves specific trial details) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_by_location' (which might be a more specialized location search).

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage context through default behaviors (recruiting status, 3-month timeframe, 30 results) and mentions support for various search criteria. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus 'search_by_location' or provide clear exclusions/alternatives.

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