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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true, so the description usefully adds the FHIR mapping (POST /Patient) and that the resource is 'minimal' — implying optional fields not supplied are omitted rather than defaulted. It does not cover auth requirements, duplicate handling, or what is returned, but with annotations carrying the mutation signal this is above baseline.

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?

Three tight sentences with the action and tenant front-loaded, then the protocol mapping, then the state-changing warning. No filler, every clause carries information.

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?

For a 9-parameter create call with no output schema and only a destructiveHint annotation, the description leaves notable gaps: whether the created patient's id is returned for later retrieval, how duplicates are handled, and any required scopes. What is present is accurate and adequate, but not complete.

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% and each of the 9 params is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the aggregate note that args are assembled into a minimal Patient resource; it adds no per-parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('Registers a NEW patient record in your Health Gorilla tenant') and pins the underlying operation (FHIR POST /Patient), clearly separating it from siblings like get_patient, find_patients, and fhir_search. The uppercase NEW signals creation rather than retrieval.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb, but the description never says when to choose this over healthgorilla_find_patients (e.g., to check for an existing/duplicate patient first) or what prerequisites exist. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given.

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