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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context beyond them: the response is a legacy FHIR shape, the tool is a compatibility shim for prototypes, and the patient is always the same fixed fictional person. It does not detail behavior when categories are omitted, but the output schema covers the response shape.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: the legacy format, prototype compatibility, the direct alternative, and the fixed-patient constraint. The most identifying attribute is front-loaded, and there is no 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?

With one optional parameter, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete enough to call the tool correctly and choose between it and the primary sibling. The category-specific sibling tools are not referenced, but the schema and named alternative make the tool's behavior 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the only parameter, categories, is fully described in the schema as an 'Optional subset of normalized record categories.' The description itself adds no parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies a get-operation for a synthetic health record in a legacy categorized FHIR format, and explicitly contrasts it with get_demo_health_record for normalized data. 'Fixed fictional patient only' further scopes the tool, making it distinguishable from all sibling record retrieval tools.

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?

'For normalized platform-shaped data, use get_demo_health_record' is an explicit condition-plus-alternative. 'Kept compatible for existing prototypes' tells the agent when the legacy path is appropriate, and 'Fixed fictional patient only' makes an important exclusion explicit.

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