searchPatients

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

With no annotations present, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Search patients'. It fails to indicate whether the tool is read-only, what happens on no results, or any side effects. The agent gets no insight beyond the name.

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?

While extremely short, the description is under-specification rather than conciseness. It fails to earn its place because it provides no value beyond the tool name. A helpful description would front-load the search domain or fields.

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?

Given the tool has one optional parameter and no output schema, the minimal description could still be adequate if it clarified the search scope or return format. However, it is completely incomplete—leaving ambiguity about functionality.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the single parameter 'q'. At 0% coverage, the description must compensate, but it adds nothing—leaving the agent without any clue what the string parameter represents (e.g., name, ID, partial match).

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 'Search patients' is a tautology—it merely restates the tool name without specifying what fields are searched or how the search works. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like findEncounters or getPatientById.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as getPatientById for exact matches or findEncounters for encounter searches. It lacks any context about prerequisites or preferred scenarios.

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