disease_trials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the response envelope shape (results, warnings, errors), but says nothing about pagination, truncation at the 50 limit, or ordering. The '(issue #130)' reference is internal noise rather than behavioral context.

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 compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded. The trailing issue-reference adds no value to an agent and is the only wasted token, keeping it just below 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description rightly explains the envelope return shape, which is the most important missing piece for a simple two-parameter read tool. It remains incomplete on the limit parameter's behavior and result ordering/pagination, which an agent needs to call it well.

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 only 50%: disease_id's schema description is the tautological 'Disease ID', and limit has no description at all. The description repeats the disease scoping but explains nothing about the limit parameter's default of 20 or its 50 maximum, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get clinical trials') scoped to a disease, which naturally separates it from drug_trials and trial_search in the sibling list. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the required disease_id parameter — an agent can infer 'use when you have a disease and want its trials.' There is no explicit statement of when to prefer trial_search or drug_trials instead, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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