Get Clinical Trials

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no further behavioral details such as pagination, data freshness, or limitations. Since annotations already cover the key behavior, the description provides minimal added value beyond the structured field.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the key purpose, and contains no redundant or extraneous words. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's role.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated) and a simple parameter set, the description provides sufficient context for using the tool. It could mention that it returns a list of trials with specific fields, but overall it is adequate for a straightforward retrieval tool. The sibling search_clinical_trials might require more differentiation, but the current description still offers good 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%, with both parameters (ticker, limit) documented. The tool description mentions output fields (trial phase, status) but not parameters. It adds little additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the parameters, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 (Get), resource (clinical trial data), and context (for a biotech/pharma company), listing included data fields like trial phase and conditions. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool search_clinical_trials, which likely performs a similar but search-oriented function.

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 provides a use context ('when analyzing a biotech company's pipeline or upcoming catalyst events'), but does not give when-not-to-use guidance or contrast with the sibling search_clinical_trials. The usage scenario is implied but not explicit about alternatives.

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