Clinicaltrials Find Eligible

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint). It explains the re-ranking logic, the fuzzy condition search behavior from ClinicalTrials.gov, and how multiple conditions are combined (OR logic). There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured and informative, but slightly verbose. The first sentence is clear, and subsequent sentences add necessary details. However, it could be slightly more concise without losing meaning. For example, 'Provide age, sex, conditions, and location to find studies...' is a bit redundant with the main purpose. Still, it's efficient overall.

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 complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers the matching logic, re-ranking, alternative tool for radius search, and parameter behavior. The output schema is present, so return values need not be detailed. All necessary context for effective use is provided.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description still adds substantial value: it explains how the 'conditions' parameter works (phrase matching, OR combination, re-ranking), clarifies the 'sex' parameter ('ALL' meaning), details location as narrowing match but not radius-based, and explains defaults for 'healthyVolunteer' and 'recruitingOnly'. The schema itself has descriptions, but the tool description enhances understanding.

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 specific purpose: matching patient demographics and conditions to eligible recruiting clinical trials. It uses a specific verb ('Match') and identifies the resource (clinical trials with eligibility criteria). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning both the matching functionality and the re-ranking behavior, and later explicitly contrasts with clinicaltrials_search_studies for radius-based search.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool ('Provide age, sex, conditions, and location to find studies') and provides an alternative ('For radius-based geographic search, use clinicaltrials_search_studies with geoFilter'). It also implies that this tool is for patient-specific matching, not general search.

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