bc_get_studies_by_intervention

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

Describes pagination and return dict structure (intervention, total studies, breakdowns, error message) but no annotations exist. Lacks details on data freshness, authorization, or side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose and filters, second describes return. No wasted words, highly efficient.

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 7 parameters and output schema existence, the description covers core functionality (intervention search, filters, paginated results with breakdowns). Could mention sort or intervention_type but those are in schema. Nearly complete.

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 parameters are documented. Description adds no additional meaning beyond schema, but reinforces that 'intervention' is the primary filter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Search trials by intervention' with specific filters (condition, phase), distinguishing it from siblings like bc_get_studies_by_condition and bc_search_studies. The verb 'Search' and resource 'trials' are explicit.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bc_get_studies_by_condition or bc_recruiting_studies_by_location. Does not mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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