search_patients_by_identifier

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a safe read operation, but does not disclose any limitations, behavior on missing results, or case sensitivity. The description is basic and leaves some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by clear Args and Returns sections. No superfluous information; every sentence serves a purpose.

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 presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return structure. It covers the key inputs and basic behavior. Some ambiguity remains about identifier types (e.g., whether other codes besides 'MR' and 'SS' are valid), but overall it is sufficiently complete for a simple 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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters with examples (e.g., 'MR', 'SS' for identifier_type). It adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could mention accepted formats or restrictions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search for patients by identifier' with concrete examples (MRN, SSN). This verb+resource+method formulation effectively distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_patients_by_name or search_patients_by_address.

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 an identifier like MRN or SSN is available, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Compared to siblings, the purpose is clear, but explicit usage guidance is lacking.

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