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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it writes PHI and initiates health-information-exchange queries, going beyond what annotations provide. However, no mention of auth, rate limits, or reversibility.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and side effects. No extraneous information. Every sentence is necessary and concise.

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?

Given 9 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and side effects. It could be improved by hinting at the return value (e.g., created patient object), but the existing content covers the essential context.

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 baseline is 3. The description only mentions facilityId as a required query param, which is already in the schema. No additional meaning or context is added for parameters.

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 states the verb 'Creates' and the resource 'Patient', and specifies side effects (writes PHI, initiates health-information-exchange queries). It distinguishes from sibling tools, which are all read/query/list operations, making it unambiguous.

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 tool's unique create function, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. The description lacks exclusion criteria or context for preferring this tool over others.

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