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

Annotations already supply destructiveHint=true, and 'State-changing' plus the POST /Patient mapping corroborate the mutation. The description usefully discloses that only a 'minimal FHIR R4 Patient resource' is built from the given args, but omits what happens on duplicate MRNs, idempotency, or permission requirements.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the API mapping, then the state-changing caveat. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 create tool with no output schema, the description never says what comes back (e.g., the new patient's FHIR id), which the agent likely needs for follow-up calls. The mutation semantics are covered by the annotation, but the return contract is left unspecified.

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 is documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The phrase 'built from the given args' loosely indicates the args map to FHIR Patient fields, but adds no format or mapping detail 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 to 'FHIR: POST /Patient'. The capitalized 'NEW' and 'State-changing' implicitly separate it from the read-oriented siblings (get_patient, find_patients), but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. Given siblings like find_patients and get_patient, the description should tell the agent whether to check for an existing record first, but it does not.

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