variant_trials

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, while the description adds meaningful behavior: the response envelope { results, warnings? }, warning propagation when MyVariant.info ID resolution fails, and retry guidance. It does not explain pagination or detailed result contents, but it substantially exceeds the annotation coverage.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact response and failure-mode note. The second sentence is dense with nested clauses, but every part contributes useful behavioral context.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description must carry return-value context, and it does so with the envelope and warning explanation. For a simple one-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, though it still lacks explicit routing guidance among sibling trial tools.

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 schema already documents the single 'variant' parameter as an rsID, HGVS, or variant ID. The description adds resolution-failure context and mentions BRAF V600E-style naming retry, but does not add new accepted formats 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Find clinical trials for a variant.' The variant scoping implicitly distinguishes it from gene_trials, disease_trials, and trial_search, but the description does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling trial tools such as gene_trials, disease_trials, drug_trials, or trial_search. The retry note addresses failed ID resolution, not tool selection.

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