search_trials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that withdrawn/terminated trials are excluded by default and that results are ordered with recruiting first. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication, or whether the search is paginated, which are relevant for a network search tool.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose, then key details. Every sentence contributes value.

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, the description includes what fields are returned (status, phase, sponsor, site count, brief summary). It covers default filtering and ordering. It lacks mention of error handling or empty results, but is otherwise complete 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for the 'status' parameter (default exclusion behavior) and mentions result ordering, but does not significantly enhance the meaning of other parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the verb 'Search' and resource 'ClinicalTrials.gov for trials matching a condition', and lists fields returned. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like 'find_recruiting_near' by mentioning ordering with RECRUITING first, but does not explicitly contrast with other siblings.

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 states default behavior (exclusion of WITHDRAWN/TERMINATED) and how to override with status, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compare_trials' or 'find_recruiting_near', nor does it mention prerequisites or context.

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