clinical_trials_by_location

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

With readOnlyHint already provided in annotations, the description adds the behavioral detail that the tool uses ClinicalTrials.gov's geo-distance filter to find trials within a radius, which is useful. However, it does not disclose default radius, pagination behavior, or return format, so it does not go beyond what annotations and schema already convey.

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 concise sentences, no redundancy, with the primary purpose front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place by explaining the mechanism and providing usage guidance.

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 has 7 parameters, no output schema, and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description adequately explains what the tool does and how to combine filters. It lacks explicit mention of defaults (e.g., 50mi radius) or return field details, but those are partially covered by the schema, making this a reasonably complete description 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema, only mentioning latitude/longitude and radius generically. It does mention combining with condition/intervention, but that is a usage tip rather than parameter-level semantic detail.

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 this tool searches for clinical trials near a geographic location, with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('clinical trials') and a clear scope ('near a geographic location'). It distinguishes itself from generic trial search tools by explicitly mentioning the geo-distance filter and latitude/longitude radius.

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 clear usage context by explaining the geo-distance filter and suggesting combination with condition or intervention filters. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for a location-based trial search.

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