get_patient_by_id

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

The description states it retrieves a patient, implying a read-only operation. With no annotations, it fails to disclose error handling (e.g., if ID not found), authentication needs, or rate limits. For a simple lookup, this is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 concise: two sentences plus labeled Args/Returns sections. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. No redundant information.

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?

The tool has one parameter and is a simple retrieval. The description covers input and output (with output schema presumably detailing the return structure). However, it lacks information on error states or prerequisites, but for a get-by-id tool this is nearly 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?

The input schema has no description for patient_id (0% coverage). The tool description adds the semantic that it is a FHIR patient ID, which is valuable context beyond the schema. However, it lacks format details (e.g., expected length or pattern).

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 verb 'Retrieve', the resource 'patient', and the method 'by their FHIR patient ID'. This specifically differentiates it from sibling tools that retrieve other resources by ID (e.g., get_allergy_by_id) or search tools.

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 implies usage when you have a FHIR patient ID, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like search_patients_by_name. The context is clear but lacks exclusion criteria.

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