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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds real context beyond that — a short-row projection (id, name, email, birthdate, phones, tags, alert, archived), id ordering, and a health-data handling caveat. It stops short of describing pagination mechanics or result caps, which the schema carries instead.

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?

Four compact clauses with zero waste: purpose and shape first, the sibling redirect second, the privacy gating third, the endpoint last. Front-loading is correct and every sentence earns its place.

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 12 optional parameters and no output schema, the description fills the biggest gap by enumerating the returned row fields and their ordering — an agent knows what it gets back. Combined with the get_patient redirect and the privacy rule, nothing essential is missing.

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% — every one of the 12 filters is documented inline, including pagination via id_gt/id_lt and the include_archived default. The description adds only the word 'filtered' and does not explain individual parameters, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List patients (clients) of the practice'), plus scope details: filtered, id-ordered, short rows with a named field projection. It also explicitly contrasts itself with splose_get_patient for full records, so an agent can distinguish it from the closest sibling without opening a 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?

Names the alternative ('Use splose_get_patient for the full record') and the condition that selects it, and adds an explicit gating rule: 'only look people up when the user asks.' Both when-to-use and a when-not restraint are present, which is rare.

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