search_by_condition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states a generic action ('search') without detailing return format, result ordering, matching behavior, or any side effects. The description does not add meaningful transparency beyond what the schema already indicates.

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 with zero wasted words. It directly states the action and scope without redundancy, making it highly concise.

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 simple search context and fully described schema parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain what the returned trials look like, how filters combine, or any limiting behavior. Without output schema or annotations, the description could have added more contextual completeness, but the schema covers parameters well enough for this simple tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add semantics beyond the schema; it just paraphrases the condition parameter. No additional meaning or usage context is provided for parameters like phase, pageSize, or recruitmentStatus.

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 verb 'search,' the resource 'clinical trials,' and the specific scope 'focusing on specific medical conditions.' This scope directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_by_location and search_by_sponsor, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage for trials by condition through the phrase 'focusing on specific medical conditions,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like search_by_sponsor or search_by_intervention. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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