bc_get_studies_by_condition

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

The description indicates the tool returns paginated results with summaries and error messages, implying a read-only operation. However, with no annotations, it does not explicitly state whether it is safe (non-destructive), authentication needs, or rate limits, which are important for behavioral transparency.

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 concise with two sentences followed by a return format. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and every piece of information contributes meaningfully without redundancy.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, 1 required), full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return structure. However, it lacks details on pagination behavior and error handling, which could be supplemented by the output schema.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema, only reiterating the condition parameter and summary output. It does not explain parameter interactions or provide examples, failing to add significant value.

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 verb 'search' and the resource 'trials by condition', and mentions summary statistics with breakdowns by status, study type, and phase. It differentiates from sibling tools like bc_search_studies or bc_get_studies_by_intervention by focusing on condition-based search with aggregated statistics.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as bc_search_studies or bc_get_recruiting_studies_by_location. It does not mention when not to use it or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and context.

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