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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe non-mutating read, so the burden is low. The description adds the location-scoping constraint and the HTTP verb/path, which is useful, but says nothing about pagination behavior, sort defaults, or result limits despite page/per_page/sort params existing.

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, the core capability front-loaded and the location-context constraint immediately after. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 read-only search with a fully documented schema and no output schema to explain, the description covers the essential filters, the required location context, and the endpoint. Minor gaps (inactive/per_page semantics, result shape) are handled by the schema.

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 already documented in the schema. The description only names 4 of the 10 filters and adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, meriting the baseline 3.

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+resource (search patients) and enumerates the key filter dimensions (name, email, phone, date of birth), plus the underlying endpoint GET /patients. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling nexhealth_get_patient, so an agent must infer search-vs-fetch on its own.

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?

"Patient search is always in a location context" supplies a real prerequisite for using the tool. However, it names no alternative (e.g., nexhealth_get_patient for a known id) and gives no when-not guidance, leaving usage only implied.

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