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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds the concrete REST endpoint and path, which is useful context, but says nothing about error behavior (e.g. unknown id), record contents, or whether the call is scoped to an authenticated org.

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 with zero filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the endpoint detail is a compact second sentence that earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the definition is essentially complete. The only omission is any hint about failure modes or what the returned record contains, which is minor given the simplicity.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as the 'Particle-assigned patient id (from submit/search)', so the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a single patient record') and pins the lookup key to the Particle patient id, which separates it from list-style siblings like particle_search_patient. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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: an agent infers this is the right call when it already holds a Particle patient id from submit/search. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no signposting toward particle_search_patient or the get_fhir/get_ccda variants for different data shapes.

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