bc_get_recruiting_studies_by_location

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

The description mentions pagination and return format (summary breakdowns), which provides some behavioral context. However, without annotations, it lacks details on data freshness, required permissions, or error handling beyond a brief 'or error message'.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the purpose. The returns section is somewhat redundant given the presence of an output schema, slightly reducing conciseness.

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?

For a tool with rich schema and pagination, the description covers key points: location-based search, recruiting filter, pagination, and return summary. It is missing explicit differentiation from siblings but is otherwise adequate.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 the tool finds recruiting clinical trials by geographic location, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bc_get_studies_by_condition by focusing on location-based filtering.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., bc_search_studies, bc_get_studies_by_condition), the description should mention when to prefer this location-based search over other methods.

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