get_patient

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds that it targets the signed-in patient (implying session-scoped auth, no ID argument) and enumerates the returned fields, but says nothing about failure behavior when no patient is signed in.

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 sentence with the scope front-loaded and the returned fields and intent inline; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 zero-argument read tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the key facts: data scope, returned fields, and purpose. It could only be improved by noting behavior when no session or patient exists.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description usefully clarifies that no patient identifier is required because the target is implicitly the signed-in patient.

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?

Specific verb (get) plus a precisely scoped resource (the signed-in patient's basic demographics) and it names the returned fields, name and birth date. It is clearly distinct from get_medications and get_access_log by resource, though it does not explicitly contrast with those siblings.

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 trailing clause 'to confirm whose record this is' implies the intended use case (identity/record verification), which is useful implied guidance. It offers no explicit when-not conditions and does not name alternatives for retrieving patient data.

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