trial_protocol_getter

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. While it indicates this is a read operation ('Fetch', 'Retrieves'), it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format details. The description adds some context about what data is returned but lacks critical behavioral traits.

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. It starts with a clear purpose statement, then uses a bulleted list to efficiently detail the specific information retrieved. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information.

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 that there's an output schema (which should document return values) and 100% schema coverage for the single parameter, the description provides adequate context for a read-only tool. However, without annotations and with multiple similar sibling tools, it could benefit from more differentiation and behavioral details to be fully complete.

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 fully documents the single parameter (nct_id). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage through the schema alone.

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 a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('core protocol information for a clinical trial'), and lists key data elements retrieved. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'trial_getter' or 'trial_searcher', which likely handle different aspects of trial 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools related to trials (e.g., trial_getter, trial_searcher, trial_locations_getter), there's no indication of how this tool differs in scope or when it should be preferred over others.

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