臨床試験検索

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only states the basic search-and-filter function. It doesn't describe behavior of the 'limit' parameter, pagination, whether it's a live external API call, failure modes, or the result-set behavior — all significant for a tool with a default limit and externally sourced data.

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 short sentences in Japanese with zero waste: function first, filter dimensions second, use cases last. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is front-loaded with the core action. Appropriately sized for a search tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation. The description adequately covers the tool's purpose and main filter dimensions, but gaps remain: 'term' and 'limit' semantics are undocumented, and the accepted values for phase/status are unspecified. Adequate for a filtered search tool, but not exhaustive.

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 0%, placing the full burden on the description. It does map five of the seven parameters to filter dimensions (condition, intervention, status, phase, country), but it omits 'term' and 'limit' and provides no acceptable value formats for phase/status. With no enums in the schema either, an agent has no concrete guidance for populating those 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('searches ClinicalTrials.gov') and lists its filtering dimensions (disease, intervention, status, phase, country). It also gives concrete use cases — checking ongoing trials and a drug's development stage. It doesn't name siblings explicitly, but the resource and use cases clearly mark it as the clinical-trial search tool among the drug/pubmed/guideline 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 final sentence explicitly states when to use it ('to check ongoing trials and at what stage a drug is at'), providing clear usage context. However, it offers no exclusions and doesn't name alternatives like search_drug or search_pubmed, so an agent must infer the boundary between this and related search tools.

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