mosaic_trial_results

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns only real records with real NCT IDs and brief titles, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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 three sentences long, each conveying important information: what the tool returns, how it filters, and when to use it. No wasted words.

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 tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main use case, filtering options, and alternative usage. It could mention the requirement of at least one filter, but that is already in the schema. Overall, it is sufficiently 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description mentions filtering by gene symbol, compound name, or indication, adding some meaning. However, it does not detail the limit or has_results_only parameters, and the schema descriptions already provide detailed explanations. The description adds moderate 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 the tool returns real ClinicalTrials.gov records with specific fields (NCT ID, title, phase, sponsor, status). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool mosaic_clinical_pipeline by emphasizing that all rows have real NCT IDs.

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 says when to use this tool: 'Use this when you need to cite specific trials or highlight read-outs.' It also contrasts with mosaic_clinical_pipeline, giving clear guidance on alternatives.

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