search_pharma_trials

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the symbol resolution behavior, but this info is already in the parameter schema. It does not describe side effects, rate limits, return format, or any limitations. For a search tool, it is likely read-only, but that is not stated.

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 two short sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a key behavioral detail. Every word 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?

The tool has 5 optional parameters and no output schema. The description clarifies the scope (Korean pharma, ClinicalTrials.gov) and the symbol resolution, but it does not describe the return format, error handling, or any limitations. It is adequate for a straightforward search but leaves some contextual gaps.

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 each parameter is well-documented. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what's in the schema; the symbol resolution is already noted in the symbol parameter description. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 function: searching ClinicalTrials.gov for Korean pharma company trials. It uses a specific verb ('Search'), identifies the resource and scope, and the symbol-to-sponsor resolution adds a distinguishing feature relative to sibling tools focused on stock analysis.

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 implies when to use the tool (when searching for Korean pharma trials) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools are unrelated, so the purpose is clear, but there is no explicit 'use when' or 'vs alternatives' statement.

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