find_patients

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only 'find' operation but says nothing about return volume, pagination, sorting, or whether the filters combine as AND/OR. There is no mention of limitations or special behavior beyond the core action, leaving the agent without essential operational context.

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 a single sentence, which is concise and easy to parse. However, it front-loads the purpose but omits crucial details like parameter semantics and usage guidance. It earns its place as a purpose statement but lacks the substance needed for effective tool selection.

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?

Given that this is a filtering tool with a nested filter object and no parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (though an output schema exists, it's not referenced), doesn't clarify filter behavior, and offers no guidance on edge cases. For an agent to call this correctly, it must rely on external knowledge or trial.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for documenting the 'filters' parameter, but it simply repeats 'matching the given filters' without explaining fields like gender, max_age, min_age, or subject_id. It adds no meaning beyond the schema's structural definition, and the nested object's semantics are entirely unaddressed.

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 clearly states the action ('Find') and the resource ('patients in the MIMIC-IV Demo cohort'), and mentions 'matching the given filters' which gives a general sense of scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings (get_admissions, get_labs, aggregate) by the patient-centric focus, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or contrast them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, no mention of typical use cases, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The description only states what it does, not when to prefer it over alternatives. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone.

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