Search Clinical Trials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds context about market-wide scope and filtering, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or response behavior. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not outstanding.

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?

Two sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence states the primary action and scope, the second lists filters and operations. Front-loaded with the most critical information (market-wide vs single ticker). 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?

Given 11 parameters, an output schema, and annotations declaring read-only, the description covers the essential context: scope, differentiation from sibling, and filter capabilities. Pagination details (offset, limit) are in the schema. The description could mention the output schema or result format, but it's not required. Overall, complete enough for this 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%, with each parameter having a description in the input schema. The description lists filter categories (phase, indication, sponsor, etc.) but does not add meaningful syntax or format details beyond what is already in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description adds marginal 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 it searches clinical trials market-wide (cross-company) and explicitly distinguishes it from get_clinical_trials which is ticker-scoped. The verb 'search' combined with the resource and scope makes the purpose precise and unambiguous.

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 explicitly differentiates from get_clinical_trials by scope (market-wide vs single ticker). It lists filter capabilities, implying when to use this tool (broad search with filters). No explicit when-not-to or alternative tools beyond the one mentioned, but the differentiation is clear enough.

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