gene_trials

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read-only lookup, and the description does not contradict that. It adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as result limits, data source, or whether the gene-to-trial association is direct or inferred.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter lookup tool.

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?

For a low-complexity, one-parameter read-only lookup, the description plus the fully documented schema and readOnlyHint are mostly sufficient. The main gap is that it does not clarify expected results or relationship to the broader trial_search family, but invocation is still clear.

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%, and the single parameter is documented as an HGNC gene symbol. The description's phrase 'for a gene' reinforces the parameter's purpose but adds no format or lookup details beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Find clinical trials,' scoped explicitly to 'a gene.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as drug_trials, disease_trials, and variant_trials by the entity the search is based on.

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 scope implies that the tool should be used when looking up clinical trials associated with a gene. However, the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this over trial_search, drug_trials, disease_trials, or variant_trials, so routing remains partly inferred.

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