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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral trait: the tool does not check for an existing patient, which is important for duplicate prevention; it still does not describe success/failure or return behavior.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the duplicate caveat. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 12-parameter create mutation, the description covers purpose, duplicate-risk guidance, and points to the correct prerequisite tool. The remaining gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not explain what is returned on success, but the schema and annotations cover most invocation needs.

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 all 12 parameters, including required first_name and last_name, are documented in the schema. The description only says 'from the details you give' and adds no parameter-level meaning, 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource—'Creates a new patient record'—and adds scope '(personal data)' plus a duplicate-check caveat. It names the sibling semble_list_patients, so an agent can distinguish this from read/list tools without opening the 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?

It explicitly tells the agent to search with semble_list_patients first to avoid duplicates, which is a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-create rule. The alternative is named directly, leaving little inference.

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