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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive safety, so the description carries little burden. It adds only the 'mandate rails' concept, which hints at authorization requirements without specifying them.

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?

Single sentence of 11 words, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. No filler; every word either specifies the operation or scopes its 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?

Despite having 9 optional parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal. It doesn't clarify parameter grouping or how to choose between this and sibling tools, but the schema and annotations cover most structural needs.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each of the 9 parameters is already described. The description doesn't add further semantic detail about parameters, maintaining the baseline for full schema coverage.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' with resource 'one clinic patient', distinguishing from list_patients and get_demo_patient. The qualifier 'clinic' separates it from demo context, though 'mandate rails' is jargon but doesn't obscure purpose.

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 when-to-use or alternatives are named, but 'through Toofi agent-native mandate rails' implies a mandate-scoped context. It doesn't provide exclusions like 'use list_patients for multiple patients'.

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