find_patient

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a count, interprets count values (0 = new, >1 = multiple records), and warns against guessing. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the raw schema. It does not discuss edge cases like empty query or authentication, but the core ambiguity resolution behavior is clearly explained.

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 front-loaded: purpose in the first sentence, usage context next, count interpretation and real-world rationale, then examples. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff. The structure flows logically from what to usage to how to interpret results.

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's simplicity (one param, output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers when to use, how to interpret the count, and what to do in ambiguous cases. The output schema handles return-value specifics, so the description need not repeat that. The only minor gap is lack of explicit error handling, but that is not critical for this straightforward search tool.

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 only defines 'query' as a string with no description. The description compensates by explaining that query accepts partial name or phone number, and provides concrete examples. It does not specify case sensitivity or phone number formatting, but for a single parameter with 0% schema coverage, this is a solid addition.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Search patients by partial name or phone number.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like register_patient, book_appointment, or list_doctors. It also states the direct use case: 'Use this before booking for someone who says they have been here before.'

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: use before booking for existing patients. It also provides an alternative: 'A `count` of 0 means they are new: use register_patient.' It further instructs on handling multiple matches: 'When `count` is greater than 1, ask the caller which record is theirs.' This is exactly the when/when-not/alternatives guidance required.

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