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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that a COMPLETE query is required/returned when query_id is omitted, but says nothing about polling behavior, whether incomplete queries error or return partial data, or auth requirements beyond the endpoint path. Modest added value over the annotations.

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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the query_id rule immediately after. The endpoint string (GET /api/v2/...) is mildly redundant with the readOnly annotation but is compact and not disruptive.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming what the response contains (state, timing, demographics, files) and the patient-scoped endpoint. It is nearly complete for a two-parameter read tool; only the behavior for non-complete or missing queries is left 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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description's 'omit query_id for the latest COMPLETE query' mirrors the schema text almost verbatim. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds no semantics beyond what structured fields provide.

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 ('Get the status of a clinical-record retrieval query') and enumerates the returned facets (state, timing, demographics, files), which cleanly separates it from sibling operations like particle_create_query or the various get_fhir/get_ccda retrieval tools.

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?

The description gives one conditional usage rule ('Omit query_id to get the latest COMPLETE query'), but that is really parameter behavior rather than when-to-use guidance. It never states when this tool should be preferred over siblings or what prerequisites exist, leaving usage largely inferred.

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