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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that patients are 'public no-PHI', which is useful data-sensitivity context but not a rich behavioral trait like auth requirements or side effects. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence of 12 words that clearly states the action and purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple list operation, the presence of an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains the tool's purpose and data type (demo, no-PHI). A minor gap is not explicitly mentioning the distinction from production tools like list_patients, but the 'demo' label makes it sufficiently 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?

All 6 parameters have full descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat parameter info. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which aligns with the baseline of 3 for high 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('public no-PHI Toofi demo patients') with a stated purpose ('so agents can inspect patient response structure'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_patients and get_demo_patient.

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 implies usage for demo/inspection scenarios and explicitly notes that data is public and contains no PHI, which differentiates it from production tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the 'demo' label provides clear context.

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