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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this a safe read, and the description's 'GET /{resource}' is consistent with that. It adds useful scoping ('in the chart') but says nothing about result shapes, pagination behavior, rate limits, or auth needs beyond what the annotations and schema imply.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core action and resource selection before the motivating examples, and every sentence carries information. The enumeration of resource-to-question mappings is slightly long but earns its place as selection guidance.

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 10-parameter search tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, resource choice, and the endpoint. The main gap is the return shape and how paging works in practice, which an agent would otherwise have to infer from _count/_offset.

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 100%, so all 10 parameters are already documented. The description adds only framing ('pick resource, then narrow with the standard FHIR search parameters') and does not supply format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 gives a specific verb (search) and resource (any supported FHIR R4 resource in the chart), plus the underlying endpoint GET /{resource}. It distinguishes itself from siblings like canvas_read by framing itself as the broad entry point for clinical questions rather than a single-record fetch.

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?

It gives clear usage context ('Nearly every clinical question starts here') and a concrete heuristic for choosing the resource type (Condition/Observation for problem lists, MedicationRequest for prescriptions, etc.). It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming the sibling alternative (e.g. canvas_read for a single known record).

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