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 conveys read-oriented search behavior via 'Find' and constrains what can be searched, but it does not disclose match multiplicity, no-match behavior, or access requirements. No contradiction is present, but some gaps remain.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs verb, resource, query semantics, and usage timing with no filler. Every word contributes to selecting and invoking the tool.

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 simple one-parameter lookup tool with an output schema available, the description covers what to pass and when to call it. It does not cover edge-case behavior, but that is not critical at this complexity level and the output schema can describe return values.

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?

The schema provides only a bare 'query' property with 0% description coverage, so the tool description is the sole source of parameter semantics. It states that the query accepts a medical record or partial name, which meaningfully compensates for the schema gap, though it omits format specifics such as minimum length or exact MRN syntax.

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 clear verb ('Find'), a specific resource ('patient'), and the accepted query forms ('medical record or partial name'). It also frames the tool as a preliminary step before clinical data requests, distinguishing it from the sibling lab-result tools.

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 says to use this tool 'before requesting clinical data,' which tells the agent this is the prerequisite lookup step. It does not enumerate exclusions or name an alternative, but the context is clear enough for routing among the sibling tools.

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