find_recruiting_near

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly discloses key behavioral traits: grouping by location rings, city/country-level limitation, and the critical distinction between trial-level and site-level recruitment status. This adds significant context beyond the input schema.

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?

Extremely concise: two clear sentences plus a necessary caution. Front-loaded with the main purpose, then key behavioral details. 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 no output schema and four parameters, the description covers the tool's behavior well, including limitations and a critical caveat. Could mention pagination or error handling, but for a straightforward search tool this is sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., condition, location, phase, max_results). The note about location granularity is helpful but not new parameter-level detail.

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?

Clearly states the tool finds actively recruiting trials for a condition near a location, including grouping by location rings. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like search_trials or get_trial_results, which could be used for broader or different purposes.

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?

Provides important usage guidance: location is city/country level, no GPS radius, and warns about overall trial status vs site status. Does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the caveat is valuable for correct usage.

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