trial_outcomes_getter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read operation ('fetch', 'retrieves') and adds important behavioral context about data availability constraints ('Results are only available for completed trials that have posted data'), but doesn't mention other traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The bullet points efficiently detail what information is retrieved, and the note provides crucial context without unnecessary elaboration. Every sentence earns its place.

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 moderate complexity, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, scope, and data availability constraints, though it could benefit from more behavioral context about how the tool handles edge cases or errors.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents the single parameter (nct_id) adequately. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 with specific verbs ('fetch', 'retrieves') and resource ('outcome measures and results for a clinical trial'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like trial_getter or trial_searcher by focusing specifically on outcomes and results data.

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 about when results are available ('only available for completed trials that have posted data'), which helps guide usage. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like trial_getter or trial_searcher, which might provide overlapping or different information.

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