search_by_location

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.