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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable substance beyond that by spelling out the returned data categories, which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of noting behavior on unknown ids or cross-practice access implied by openWorldHint.

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 core action and scope, followed by the sibling exclusion. No redundant restatement of the title or annotations.

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 single-parameter read with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description's enumeration of returned fields fills the largest gap. Minor omissions remain: behavior for a nonexistent id and pagination/absence of it are unstated, though neither is critical here.

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's schema text already says where the id comes from (semble_list_patients). The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, 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 (fetch one patient by id) and enumerates the concrete data returned: demographics, phones, address, numbers, custom attributes, labels, comments, status. It also explicitly scopes out appointments, invoices and tasks by noting they have their own tools, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like semble_get_invoice or semble_list_patient_bookings.

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 closing sentence routes the agent away from this tool for appointments, invoices and tasks, which is real exclusion guidance. However, it does not contrast with semble_list_patients (the natural alternative for finding patients) nor state any prerequisite such as needing a valid id first — the schema carries that hint instead.

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