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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true but no readOnlyHint, and the description reinforces the write nature with a ⚠️ WRITE marker plus the concrete effect (a new patient record is created) and return value. It adds the endpoint and the system-generated id behavior, though it says nothing about idempotency or duplicate handling.

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 tightly-packed elements with the warning marker front-loaded, followed by the action and the return-value payoff. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly fills that gap by explaining what is returned (the patient plus particle_patient_id). For a 13-parameter write tool this is a solid, well-scoped description, though it omits error/duplicate behavior.

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 13 parameters, including required fields, enum, and format constraints, are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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 ('register a new patient with Particle Health'), which is unambiguously distinct from siblings like particle_get_patient and particle_search_patient. The POST endpoint confirms this is the creation entry point.

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 context is only implied: the note that the returned particle_patient_id is 'use[d] for subsequent queries' hints at the workflow, but there is no explicit statement of when to register vs. look up or search an existing patient, nor any prerequisites.

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