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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, but the description adds essentially nothing beyond that — no 404/not-found behavior, no auth or subdomain-permission context, no pagination or expansion notes. Mentioning the REST route GET /patients/{id} is a restatement of the name rather than behavioral disclosure.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, with no padding. The trailing 'GET /patients/{id}.' is largely redundant with the tool name and title, a minor cost.

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 simple single-record read with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully described schema, the essentials are present. However, with no output schema and no statement of what a fetched patient contains or how failures surface, completeness is only adequate.

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 both the id path param and the subdomain fallback are already documented in the schema. The description's 'by id' adds no format, range, or fallback detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (fetch) and resource (a single patient) with the lookup key (id), and 'single' plus 'by id' implicitly separates it from search_patients and list-style siblings. An agent can pick this tool apart from nexhealth_search_patients without opening either schema.

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?

'By id' implies usage only when a patient id is already known, which is a reasonable cue, but the description never names the alternative (nexhealth_search_patients) or states a when-not condition. Usage is inferred rather than spelled out.

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