Recruiting Sites

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real value by defining the inclusion rule -- a site qualifies on its own RECRUITING status, or when it has no status and the study is RECRUITING -- but it says nothing about permissions, result limits, or whether contact details can be absent vs. empty.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, and the second sentence earns its place by pinning down the non-obvious 'recruiting' predicate. Slightly longer than strictly necessary for a list tool, but no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained; the description still usefully flags that contact details appear only where the registry supplies them. Combined with the recruiting definition, an agent has enough to call this correctly, with only permission/limit behavior left unstated.

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%, with each filter (city/state/country) and the required nct_id documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, matching behavior, or filter-combination detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('List the sites of a study') plus a precise scope qualifier ('currently recruiting'). The resource (sites of a study) is naturally distinct from siblings search_trials/get_trial, which operate on trials themselves, though the description never names an alternative to force the distinction.

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?

Usage is implied by the geography filters in the schema (city/state/country) and the recruiting constraint, so an agent can infer this is the tool for enumerating study locations. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, nor any mention of when another sibling (e.g. get_trial) would be preferable.

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