clinical_trials_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context by listing the returned sections (protocol, eligibility, arms/interventions, etc.) and explaining that fields reduces response size. It does not cover error cases, but the added info is solid.

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 sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded, followed by return contents and a usage tip. No wasted words; each sentence earns its place.

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?

The description adequately covers the main return sections and optional filtering, which is sufficient for a read-only detail tool without an output schema. Minor omissions like missing-ID behavior don't significantly detract.

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% for both parameters, and the description adds value by explaining the purpose of the fields parameter (request only specific sections, reduces response size) beyond the schema's basic example.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full details for a specific clinical trial by NCT ID'), and lists the content sections returned. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like clinical_trials_search or clinical_trials_stats.

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?

It clearly indicates the tool is for fetching a detail by NCT ID and provides guidance on using the fields parameter for selective requests. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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