show_patient_info

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a non-mutating read, and the description adds essentially nothing on top of that. For a PHI-bearing patient chart it says nothing about access requirements, what portion of the chart is returned (full chart vs. summary), response size, or whether a missing/unauthorized id yields an error or empty result.

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 resource, with no filler wording. The second sentence is slightly redundant with the first but does real work as usage guidance, so it earns its place.

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 read tool with annotations and no output schema, the essentials are covered. The notable gap is scope relative to read_chart_section: an agent cannot tell from this description whether the full chart or only a summary is returned, which matters when choosing between the two.

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?

There is one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already stating "The patient resource id." The phrase "by id" in the description merely restates the schema and adds no format, source, or lookup guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Show one patient's chart by id" gives a specific verb (show), resource (patient chart), and cardinality (one), so it is clearly a single-record retrieval. It is distinguishable from search_patients, but it never clarifies how it differs from the sibling read_chart_section.

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?

"Use when the user wants to view a specific patient's details" supplies a when-to-use condition, which is more than nothing. However, no alternative is named and no exclusion is given (e.g. when to use read_chart_section for a single section, or search_patients when the id is unknown), so routing between siblings is left to inference.

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