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

The description adds real behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: this is asynchronous, it returns a query_id, and progress must be polled via a named tool. It stops short of explaining what 'destructive' concretely means here (whether a prior query is superseded) or any auth/rate constraints.

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 short sentences, with the WRITE warning front-loaded and the endpoint path appended without padding. Nothing redundant.

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 an async write tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing piece — the query_id return and the polling loop. It is nearly complete; only the semantics of the destructive hint and any permission requirements are unstated.

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 all four parameters are already documented with examples (e.g. specialties ["ONCOLOGY"], purpose_of_use TREATMENT). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('initiate a nationwide clinical-record retrieval for a patient') and marks it as a WRITE. This is clearly distinguishable from the read-oriented siblings like particle_get_fhir and particle_get_ccda, and the follow-up poll tool is named.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to particle_get_query_status for polling after the call, which is the key workflow guidance. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over the direct fetch siblings (particle_get_fhir, particle_get_flat) or what prerequisites exist beyond a patient id.

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