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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safe-read profile, so the description only needs to add context. It contributes the output format (de-nested/flattened) and the underlying endpoint, but omits pagination, response size, and auth expectations that matter for pulling a full patient record.

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 plus endpoint: purpose and format contrast come first, filter capability second, implementation detail last. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema and fully documented params, the description covers what the tool returns conceptually and the endpoint. Minor gaps remain around pagination and how much data to expect, but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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 three parameters are already documented. The description adds only a restatement of the domain filter and says nothing about the _since incremental-sync parameter or the patient id format, so no value beyond the schema.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (patient's clinical data) and pins the distinguishing characteristic: Particle's flattened/de-nested format, explicitly contrasted with raw FHIR. This lets an agent separate it from siblings like particle_get_fhir and particle_get_fhir_by_type without opening a 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?

Implies usage via 'easier to read than raw FHIR' and notes the optional single-domain filter, but never states when to pick this over particle_get_fhir, particle_get_ccda, or particle_get_fhir_by_type. Selection guidance is left to inference.

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