Get Trial

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' plus the field inventory makes the read-only, single-record nature clear, and it enumerates what is returned, but it says nothing about failure behavior (invalid or unknown NCT number) or any 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then a compact inventory of returned content. The return-field list is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but it is not wasteful enough to hurt readability.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, yet it still names the high-value categories, and the single required parameter is fully covered by the schema. Only the absence of error/not-found behavior keeps it short of 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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% — the schema already documents nct_id with an example format. The description's 'by NCT number' adds no syntax or semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 for schema-covered parameters applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one study by NCT number') plus the transformation applied ('normalized into a readable structure'). The singular, identifier-keyed nature of the lookup implicitly separates it from the collection-oriented sibling search_trials.

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 identifier requirement ('by NCT number') implies the usage context — fetch one known trial — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement about when to prefer get_trial over search_trials or eligibility_check, and no prerequisites noted.

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