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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the matching semantics ('contains' matching via q[]=field:~value), which tells the agent filters are substring, not exact. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or result 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?

Very short and front-loaded: purpose first, then filter semantics, then endpoint. No filler. The trailing 'GET /patients' fragment is somewhat telegraphic but still compact.

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 all seven parameters schema-documented, no output schema, and a readOnly annotation, the essentials are covered. Pagination defaults and result format are left to the schema, which is acceptable, though a note on paging through results would have improved completeness for a list endpoint.

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 every parameter (page, per_page, sort, order, email, first_name, last_name) is already documented in the schema. The description's note about 'contains' matching largely repeats what the schema already states for the name/email fields, adding little beyond baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search/list patients') and gives the underlying endpoint, so the agent knows this is a collection query. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling cliniko_get_patient (single-record fetch), so differentiation is only implicit.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the alternative cliniko_get_patient for fetching a known patient. The description only implies usage through the phrase 'Search/list patients', leaving the agent to infer context.

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