search_patients

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the safety profile, so restating "read-only" earns no credit. The description does add one piece of genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: results are limited to records the configured FHIR backend permits, which warns the agent that results may be incomplete due to access scoping. It omits matching behavior (exact vs. partial name) and any result-size or pagination limits.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope; no filler or redundant preamble. The second sentence is partly a restatement of the readOnlyHint annotation, which slightly dilutes the value but costs little space.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive lookup with a fully documented schema and no output schema to explain, the definition covers the essentials: what it searches, that it is safe, and that results are permission-scoped. The remaining gap is match semantics and result limits, which are useful but not blocking for correct invocation.

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%, with the single "name" parameter documented with an example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond the schema — notably it does not say whether matching is substring, prefix, or exact, which is the most consequential semantic for a name search.

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?

"Search patients by name" gives a specific verb (search) and resource (patients) plus the primary search key, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling show_patient_info, which could plausibly also retrieve a patient by name.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and none of the siblings (show_patient_info, read_chart_section, read_document) are referenced. The only hint toward usage is the word "search" implying a lookup/filter operation rather than a direct read.

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