clinical_trials_results

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

Read-only behavior is already indicated by readOnlyHint=true. The description adds the hasResults=true constraint and enumerates the response content categories, which are not visible in the annotations. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the structured metadata.

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 three sentences: the first states purpose, the second lists return contents, and the third gives the precondition and alternative search tool. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or 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?

For a single-parameter read-only lookup with full schema documentation, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, the precondition, and how to find eligible trials. The listed result sections provide sufficient expectation despite the absence of an 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?

The sole parameter nct_id is fully documented in the schema with an example ('NCT00841061'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description only restates 'by NCT ID', adding little beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Get' plus the resource 'posted results for a completed clinical trial by NCT ID', clearly stating what the tool does. It also lists the returned data sections (outcome measures, adverse events, participant flow, baseline characteristics), which distinguishes it from search and detail siblings.

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 states the precondition 'Only works for trials where hasResults=true' and directs users to 'clinical_trials_search with agg_filters='results:with' to find them', providing an alternative tool. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and a concrete search strategy.

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