search_by_eligibility_criteria

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Advanced search' and does not mention whether it is read-only, pagination behavior, default limits, or any other side effects or constraints. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious search action.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, but structurally it is well-front-loaded and easy to parse. Given the tool's complexity, the brevity is not a structural flaw but rather a content gap addressed in other dimensions.

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?

This is a complex tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description is far too thin to adequately guide an agent. It does not explain what makes this search 'advanced,' how the criteria are applied, or what the returned data looks like. Significant gaps remain for such a parameter-rich 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 schema already documents all 8 parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters; it merely refers to 'detailed eligibility criteria' without elaborating on how parameters like inclusionKeywords or healthyVolunteers map to those criteria. It meets the baseline but adds no extra value.

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 is a search operation based on detailed eligibility criteria, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling search tools like search_by_condition, making 'advanced' vague and lacking differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or specific scenarios where this search is preferred over other search tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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