get_protocol_snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It explicitly states that the tool computes amendment proximity by timing of last update and cannot detect what changed, providing clear behavioral transparency about capabilities and limitations.

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 no redundancy. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the second adds a critical limitation. Every word is necessary, and the structure is efficient.

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 simple input (one string parameter) and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (protocol details and amendment proximity) and a limitation. However, it could be improved by specifying the nature of the protocol details (e.g., title, phase) for full 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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter nctId described. The description adds context that the ID is for a clinical trial, but this overlaps with the schema description. It does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 retrieves 'current protocol details + amendment proximity' for a clinical trial by NCT ID. It uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_clinical_trials, which are for searching rather than fetching a snapshot.

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 when to use the tool (to get protocol snapshot and amendment timing) but does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives. It does mention a limitation (cannot detect WHAT changed), which offers some guidance on appropriate use.

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