Search Clinical Trials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the behavioral trait of 'auto-indexes drug→disease treatment edges', which provides extra context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences that are concise and front-loaded. First sentence states the core functionality and filters; second sentence adds a notable feature. No wasted words.

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 4 parameters, good annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a distinguishing feature. It lacks explicit return format details, but the schema examples partially compensate. Overall adequate 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 parameters adequately. The description does not add new parameter-specific meaning but reinforces the concept of trial filters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it searches ClinicalTrials.gov with filters for status, phase, interventions, enrollment, eligibility. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., search_pubmed, get_gene_info) by focusing on clinical trials, and the explicit mention of 'drug→disease treatment edges' adds specificity.

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 for finding clinical trials but does not provide explicit when-to-use or alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools (none of which are clinical trial search) makes the purpose clear, and the example in the schema provides usage context.

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