search_international_studies

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

The description only states the basic purpose and does not disclose behavioral traits such as filtering behavior, result ordering, or any prerequisites. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but offers minimal insight beyond the one-line purpose.

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 that communicates the core purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (6 parameters) and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It does not explain what 'multi-country' implies (e.g., minimum countries), how results are ordered, or when this tool is preferred over siblings. The rich schema mitigates some gaps, but the description alone is not fully 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?

All parameters are well-described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. It adds no additional semantic meaning, but the schema carries the weight effectively.

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's function with a verb ('Find') and a specific resource ('multi-country international clinical trials'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing the multi-country aspect, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or references to sibling tools like search_by_location or search_studies.

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