patient_search

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It discloses the return fields and the ward default ('預設不限'), but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, pagination, or error handling. For a search tool, this is moderately transparent but lacks edge-case behavior.

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 well-structured with an intro, Args block, and Returns block. Each line adds value; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

Despite no output schema or annotations, the description provides the return schema and key constraints. It lacks details on authentication behavior and error responses, but for a simple search tool it is largely complete.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters fully. It does so by listing every argument with Chinese labels and mapping ward's default '0' to '不限' (unlimited). It also clarifies the mutual-exclusion requirement, adding meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 uses a specific verb '搜尋' (search) with a clear resource '病人' (patient) and specifies the query keys: 病歷號/身分證號/姓名. This distinguishes it from siblings like patient_info or patient_opd_list_search by focusing on identifier-based patient lookup.

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?

It explicitly states the precondition '至少需提供 hisno、pidno、name 其中之一' (at least one of these is required), which is clear usage guidance. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the search scope is well defined.

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