bc_search_studies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the return type (dict with paginated studies or error) and notes it's a search with filtering. However, it does not cover potential rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or other behavioral aspects. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a return type specification. Every sentence adds meaningful information with no superfluous content. The structure is clear and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 complexity of 12 parameters and no required fields, the description provides the essential constraint and return format. An output schema is present, so return values are covered. However, it lacks guidance on pagination (e.g., how to get next page) and integration with other tools. It is nearly complete for a search tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'Specify at least one search parameter,' which enforces a constraint not present in the schema. This helps clarify usage beyond the parameter descriptions themselves.

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 it's an 'Advanced search for trials with flexible multi-field filtering,' which defines the purpose well. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like bc_get_studies_by_condition or bc_get_recruiting_studies_by_location, which are more specific. The name and description imply it's a general search, but no direct comparison is made.

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 provides the constraint 'Specify at least one search parameter,' which is a useful guideline. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus the more specific sibling tools, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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