Get a patient

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: it discloses that sensitive fields are withheld/redacted by default and only surfaced with include_contact_details, which is exactly the kind of data-scoping behavior an agent must know before calling.

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?

A single compact sentence pair, front-loaded with scope ('one patient by id') followed by the default vs. expanded return distinction. Every clause carries information about what the caller gets back.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully enumerates what is returned by default and what requires the flag, which is the key completeness gap for this tool. Missing only error/not-found behavior and pagination concerns (mostly irrelevant for a single-record fetch).

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 coverage is 50%: include_contact_details has a very thorough schema description, while patient_id has only a pattern. The description restates the default/maximal field sets, reinforcing which parameter expands output, but adds little beyond the schema's own text on the flag.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('One patient by id'), which implicitly separates it from list/search siblings such as search_patients and list_bookings. It never names an alternative explicitly, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 a clear conditional for the include_contact_details flag (default vs. full detail), which is real usage guidance. However, it offers no guidance on when to call get_patient versus search_patients, so selection 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.