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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the fallback to the latest COMPLETE query when query_id is omitted, plus the concrete fields the response surfaces. It stops short of describing failure modes for incomplete/missing queries.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and the optional-parameter rule. The trailing endpoint declaration is mildly redundant but cheap and occasionally useful for an agent reasoning about the API surface.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully compensates by naming the returned facets (state, timing, demographics, files). Combined with the query_id fallback rule, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only error/incomplete-query behavior is 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. The description's note about omitting query_id restates the schema text rather than adding new semantics (no format, id-shape, or ordering details). 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?

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 distinguishes it from siblings like particle_get_fhir or particle_get_patient. It does not explicitly name a sibling it competes with, so it falls short of a 5.

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 supplies one real usage rule: "Omit query_id to get the latest COMPLETE query," which tells the agent how to call it without an id. It gives no guidance on when to prefer this over siblings (e.g., vs. particle_create_query or the retrieval endpoints), so usage remains implied rather than explicit.

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