get_studies_with_results

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. It states that the tool filters for completed trials with results, offering some behavioral context, but it does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or whether the operation is read-only. Additional transparency beyond the obvious filter semantics is missing.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any fluff. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (4 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It does not clarify what 'published results' means in the context of the response, and the absence of an output schema means the agent may not know what to expect from the return value. For a simple filtered-list tool, it is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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%, and each parameter has a clear description. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, thus meeting the baseline for schema-heavy parameter documentation.

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 identifies the tool's function: finding completed clinical trials with published results. It uses a specific verb ('find') and resource ('clinical trials'), and the scope distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_recruiting_studies' (recruiting) and 'search_studies' (general).

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?

Usage is implied by the description but not explicitly contrasted with alternatives. There is no mention of when to use this instead of the many sibling search tools, nor exclusions. The description itself communicates the core use case but lacks explicit guidance on choosing among related tools.

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