find_patients_by_disease

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that search is case-insensitive and that the return is a formatted list of matching patients. But it does not clarify behavior for no results, pagination, or required permissions. For a simple search tool this is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and organized into summary, note, Args, and Returns sections. Every sentence adds useful information without unnecessary fluff.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, parameter explanation, and return type. It could mention edge cases like empty results or error behavior, but the provided information is sufficient for basic usage.

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 only provides the parameter name and type, with no description. The tool's description compensates fully with an Args section explaining the disease parameter and giving concrete examples ("Diabetes", "asthma"). This adds clear meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool finds all patients diagnosed with a specific disease, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_patients_by_name (who search by name) and list_patients_above_age (age-based), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 description gives clear context: use this when you need patients by disease name. It notes case-insensitivity, which is a practical usage detail. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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