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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description reveals that the data is synthetic and from a fixed fictional sample EMR, and that no account or API key is required. These are meaningful behavioral and access context that annotations do not provide.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the exact purpose and field list, followed by a clear alternative. No filler or 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?

With no parameters, a rich output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the remaining essentials: data source, synthetic nature, auth requirements, and sibling routing. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers parameter needs. The description adds value by listing what fields the returned demographics include, which helps set expectations even though no parameters exist.

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 specifies the verb 'get' and resource 'basic details (demographics)', enumerates the exact fields (name, birth date, sex, contact information), and states it is normalized from FHIR R4 Patient. It also distinguishes this tool from the broader get_demo_health_record sibling.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool when only basic details/demographics are neededcars. It also gives a direct alternative: call get_demo_health_record once to get basic details together with other categories, preventing unnecessary multi-tool calls.

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