health-clinical-trials

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It helpfully adds the cost model ($0.020 per call, x402/USDC) and the GET query-string form, but says nothing about result limits, pagination, rate limits, or auth/payment failure behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with identity and scope, then the example query and pricing in a compact run-on sentence. Nearly every clause earns its place, though folding price and query syntax into one line makes it slightly dense.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover both behavior and returns. It lists the data facets returned (status, phase, eligibility, contacts) but omits response shape, limit defaults, and error/payment handling for a nested-object tool, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the concrete query form (?condition=diabetes...) but also advertises &drug=&status=&limit= parameters that do not exist in the schema, which adds confusion rather than clarity beyond the structured fields.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (worldwide clinical trials via ClinicalTrials.gov) and enumerates the retrievable facets (status, phase, eligibility, contacts). No sibling tool covers clinical trials, so differentiation is moot and the purpose is unmistakable.

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?

"Use to search ClinicalTrials.gov by condition or intervention" gives clear invocation context and names the two accepted lookup keys. It stops short of stating when not to use it or pointing to any alternative, but with no sibling overlap there is little to exclude.

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