clinical_search

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: results are external data, fresh for 6 hours, and each result includes a URL to read the full registration via scrape_page. It also clarifies the tool's role as discovery + primary-source retrieval only, helping the agent understand its safe, read-only nature.

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 concise despite covering many aspects: purpose, query options, result contents, alternative tools, and safety caveats. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, and every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 with 8 optional parameters and no required inputs, the description is complete: it explains the domain, the output contents, the freshness, the connection to scrape_page, and the boundaries vs. other tools. The output schema exists, so not detailing every return field is acceptable.

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?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for all 8 parameters, so the description doesn't need to add much. It does mention querying by free text, condition, intervention, or sponsor, and filtering by status, which aligns with the schema but adds no new semantics beyond grouping the parameters conceptually.

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's purpose: searching ClinicalTrials.gov for clinical studies to support evidence-based medicine and systematic reviews. It names the specific resource (NIH registry), shows the query scope (free text, condition, intervention, sponsor, recruitment status), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming alternatives like academic_search and verify_citation.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use context: for evidence-based-medicine and systematic-review research. It also gives exclusions and alternatives: use academic_search for published literature, verify_citation to check a cited study, web_search for health news. Also warns it is not medical advice and treats results as data, not instructions.

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