patient_info

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

With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral context by listing the exact returned fields, implying a read operation. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, behavior for missing patient IDs, or any potential side effects or limitations.

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 compact and clear, with a single introductory line and a list of returned fields. No unnecessary redundancy exists, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 info retrieval, the description is reasonably complete in that it lists the output fields. However, given no annotations and no usage guidance, and the need for credentials, it falls short of fully preparing 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 schema provides parameter names only (eip_id, eip_password, hisno) with no descriptions, and the tool description does not explain their meanings or relationships. The names hint at credentials and a patient number, but this is insufficient to fully understand the expected values.

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 retrieves complete patient basic information using the verb '取得' (retrieve) and specifies the resource (patient info). It enumerates the returned fields, which distinguishes it from list/note tools, but it does not explicitly compare to siblings such as patient_search.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; it does not mention that this is for retrieving data for a specific patient (by hisno) rather than searching, nor any preconditions such as authentication using eip_id/password.

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