BioMCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool searches a curated database, requires an NCI API key with a source URL, and includes example usage patterns. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication errors, pagination behavior, or response format, which are important for a search tool with API dependencies.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement, bulleted list of intervention types, API key requirement, and example usage. However, the example section is slightly verbose and could be more tightly integrated, though all sentences add value for user understanding.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, API dependency) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, scope, prerequisites, and usage examples. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, and pagination behavior, which are relevant for a search tool with external API calls.

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 schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, only implying usage through examples (e.g., 'pembrolizumab' for the 'name' parameter). It does not explain parameter interactions or search logic, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search for interventions in the NCI Clinical Trials database' with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('interventions in the NCI Clinical Trials database'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'nci_intervention_getter' by specifying search functionality versus retrieval, and lists concrete intervention types (e.g., FDA-approved drugs, medical devices) to clarify scope.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: searching interventions in cancer clinical trials, with example use cases (e.g., 'Find all trials using pembrolizumab'). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'nci_intervention_getter' for retrieving specific interventions by ID, leaving some ambiguity for sibling differentiation.

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