search_patients_by_name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses case-insensitivity and partial matching, which are key behavioral traits. However, it does not mention other potentially relevant behaviors like read-only nature, result limits, or ordering. The return description is vague ('a formatted list'), leaving some uncertainty.

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 and well-structured, with a front-loaded purpose sentence followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. It is appropriately sized, containing no fluff or repetitive information.

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 search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return format adequately. It could provide more detail on the exact fields returned or any result limits, but the current level is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema only provides the parameter name and type. The description's Args section explains that 'name' accepts full or partial names and gives examples, adding significant meaning beyond the schema. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('patients'), specifying the search criterion (name containing given text). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_patient_by_id (exact ID) and find_patients_by_disease (by disease).

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 provides clear context for use: when you have a full or partial patient name to search. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but its specific purpose makes the usage obvious. The sibling tools cover different search keys, so the context is sufficient.

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