search_patients

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key non-obvious behavior: returns synthetic test data only, never real patient records. However, it does not describe the return format or error behavior, but this is acceptable for a simple search tool.

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 three concise sentences, each providing distinct value: what it does, its synthetic data guarantee, and workflow guidance. It is front-loaded and free of redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, data safety, and usage sequence. It implies the return includes patient ids but does not explicitly state the return structure. Given the low complexity, this is adequate, though a bit more detail would make it completely self-sufficient.

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 100% for both parameters (name and limit), so the schema fully documents parameter semantics. The description adds no extra parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 searches for patients in the FHIR sandbox by name, specifying the resource (patients) and the action (search). It also explicitly distinguishes from siblings by saying to use it before get_patient or get_observations to find a patient's id.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this first to find a patient's id before calling get_patient or get_observations.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool and the order relative to alternatives, plus notes it returns synthetic data only.

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