clinical_trials_results

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive traits, and the description adds an availability constraint (`hasResults=true`) plus what data sections will be returned. It does not state the exact failure mode when the precondition is unmet, but the wording is enough to prevent incorrect invocation.

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 sentences, all substantive, with core purpose and eligibility front-loaded before return-content detail. There is no filler, repetition, or schema duplication.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations, this captures purpose, input, expected return categories, and the precondition/route for finding valid trials. Although there is no output schema, the listed result sections give sufficient expectations.

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 single `nct_id` parameter is already fully documented in the schema with format and example ('NCT00841061'), at 100% schema description coverage, so the description adds little semantic value beyond naming the lookup key. Baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get posted results for a completed clinical trial by NCT ID.' It then enumerates the returned sections (outcome measures, adverse events, participant flow, baseline characteristics), which clearly separates this tool from sibling clinical_trials_detail and clinical_trials_stats.

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?

It explicitly states the precondition: 'Only works for trials where hasResults=true.' It also names the alternative for finding eligible trials: clinical_trials_search with agg_filters='results:with'. This gives the agent both a clear when-to-use boundary and the exact search path.

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