ct_search_trials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'AI-enhanced results,' hinting at some processing, but doesn't clarify what this entails (e.g., ranking, summarization, or filtering). It also omits critical details like rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or pagination behavior, which are essential for a search tool with parameters like 'pageSize.'

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('search ClinicalTrials.gov for studies'). It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be more structured by explicitly mentioning key parameters or outcomes. Every part earns its place, but it lacks depth for a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema.

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 complexity of a search tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., study summaries, IDs, or enhanced data), how 'AI-enhanced' modifies results, or any behavioral constraints. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool effectively without additional context.

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 schema description coverage is 80%, providing good documentation for most parameters (e.g., 'condition' as a medical condition, 'phase' with study phases). The description adds little beyond this, only implying search functionality without explaining how parameters interact or what 'AI-enhanced' affects. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter 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 action ('search') and target resource ('ClinicalTrials.gov for studies'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ct_get_study' or 'pm_search_papers', which might also retrieve clinical trial information or research papers. The phrase 'with AI-enhanced results' adds specificity but doesn't fully distinguish from potential overlaps.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'ct_get_study' (which might fetch details for a specific study) or 'pm_search_papers' (which searches research papers), leaving the agent with no explicit context for tool selection. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.

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