Search patients

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results are "compact summaries, not full resources" and that at least one filter is required, but it omits read-only status, authorization needs, pagination, maximum results, and error 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?

The description is front-loaded and efficient: it names the search fields, states the key filter constraint, and clarifies the return shape in three compact sentences with no wasted text.

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 six-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, it provides enough to attempt a call and notes the compact return shape. It remains incomplete because `tag`, `limit`, and result/pagination behavior are not described.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies name, phone, identifier formats (`system|value` or `value`), and birth date, but it does not mention the `tag` or `limit` parameters, leaving two of six parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Find patients" by name, phone, identifier, or birth date. It clearly identifies the searchable fields, though it does not explicitly distinguish this from the patient-oriented sibling fhir_get_patient_journey.

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 gives a clear invocation constraint: "At least one filter is required," and lists supported filters. However, it does not explain when to use this versus the patient journey or appointment-related siblings, nor does it describe exclusions or alternative search tools.

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