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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context beyond them: the exact return fields (id, name, DOB, location, active/deceased flags, contact details) and the partial_match matching rule, which annotations cannot express.

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 no filler: purpose and searchable keys first, return shape second, the tricky partial_match caveat third, and the GraphQL mapping last. Each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With 14 optional parameters, no output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers what matters: it lists the return fields to compensate for the absent output schema and pins down the partial_match semantics. Pagination defaults are left to the schema, which fully documents them, so the only real gap is the missing comparison to nookal_get_client.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema carries the parameter documentation. The description adds meaning on top by naming the searchable fields and giving a concrete partial_match example ('Sm' finds Smith), clarifying behavior the schema states only abstractly.

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 ('Find clients (patients)') and enumerates the searchable keys (name, date of birth, mobile, email, id). It is clear what the tool does, but it never differentiates itself from the sibling nookal_get_client, so an agent must infer the search-vs-single-lookup split.

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 only implied: the filter list signals 'search when you don't have the exact client', and the partial_match clause explains one filter's behavior. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the natural alternative (nookal_get_client) for retrieving a known client.

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