search_clinical_trials

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.