search_studies

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

The description discloses no behavioral traits beyond the fact that it searches. With no annotations, it should mention things like whether filters are ANDed, default result size, pagination behavior, or if the search is read-only, but it stays silent.

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 short and front-loaded, but it's under-specification rather than concise. A single generic sentence doesn't earn its place; it leaves the agent without meaningful guidance for a tool with 9 parameters.

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 complexity (9 params, 16 sibling tools, no output schema, no annotations), a one-sentence generic description is grossly inadequate. It fails to explain how filters work together, what the response looks like, or why to pick this over specialized siblings.

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 fully documents all 9 parameters. The description adds no extra semantics beyond the vague 'various filters', which doesn't enhance the schema's information.

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 uses the clear verb 'Search' and names the resource 'clinical trials', but 'various filters' is vague—it doesn't specify which filters or how they combine. It also fails to differentiate this general search tool from sibling tools like search_by_condition or search_by_location.

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. With 16 sibling search tools, the description should indicate whether this is the general-purpose search to prefer or when to use specialized ones, but it offers no context at all.

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