search_rare_diseases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'search' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose details such as pagination behavior, permissions, or return format. For a non-destructive search tool, this is minimal but acceptable.

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 directly states the action and scope with no redundant words. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple search tool, the description is adequate: purpose is clear, and the schema covers parameters. However, given the large number of sibling search tools, a brief note about this tool's unique focus on rare diseases (as opposed to general conditions) would improve completeness.

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%: all three parameters (pageSize, rareDisease, recruitmentStatus) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clinical trials specifically for rare diseases and orphan conditions, which distinguishes it from general search tools like search_studies or search_by_condition. The verb 'search' and resource 'clinical trials' are specific, and the scope is explicitly limited to rare diseases.

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 the tool is intended for rare disease queries, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives like search_by_condition or search_studies, nor does it state exclusions. Usage context is clear from the name and description, but no alternatives are named.

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