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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds value by disclosing the underlying FHIR call (GET /Patient/{id}) and the return type (a FHIR Patient resource). With no output schema present, that return-type disclosure is genuinely useful context.

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 core action front-loaded, followed by the FHIR mapping and return type. No padding 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only, no-output-schema tool, this covers action, scope, endpoint, and return type adequately. It could be stronger by contrasting with get_patient_everything, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 the sole parameter patient_id is fully documented in the schema, so the schema carries the load. The description's 'by id' phrasing reinforces but does not extend that meaning, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (read) and resource (a single patient) scoped to retrieval by id, which cleanly separates it from search-style siblings like healthgorilla_find_patients and healthgorilla_fhir_search. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but 'single ... by id' implies the distinction.

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 (fetch one known patient record), but the description offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance against close alternatives such as healthgorilla_get_patient_everything (full clinical bundle) or healthgorilla_find_patients (lookup without an id).

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