aria-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what can be searched for (active trials, recruiting studies, etc.), it doesn't describe important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or what happens when no results are found. The description adds some context about search capabilities but leaves significant gaps.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence establishes the core purpose, and the second provides specific use cases in a bullet-like format. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be slightly more front-loaded with the most critical 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 handles return values) and 100% schema coverage for parameters, the description provides adequate context for a search tool. However, with no annotations and a sibling tool present, it could better address behavioral aspects and differentiation from alternatives to be more 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 all 4 parameters with good descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, nor does it explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantic context. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is complete.

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 searches ClinicalTrials.gov for clinical studies, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It lists several use cases (active trials, recruiting studies, etc.) that help clarify the purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'search_pubmed' beyond mentioning a different data source.

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 some usage context with 'Use for:' listing specific scenarios like active trials and recruiting studies, which implies when this tool is appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus the 'search_pubmed' sibling tool, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or clear alternatives.

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