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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: it is asynchronous, it is state-changing (consistent with the annotation), it writes external documents into the tenant, and the result arrives via the Location header rather than inline. Missing permission/consent prerequisites or rate-limit notes, but the behavioral profile is well disclosed.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose, wire-level mechanics, and the required follow-up call. Front-loaded with the operation's nature and scope, and every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 an async kickoff tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it starts, where the poll URL comes from (Location header), and which sibling continues the flow. It stops short of describing what document types are imported or any network-specific prerequisites, but nothing blocking is omitted.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as the Patient resource id. The description only echoes this via the FHIR template 'patient={id}', adding no new format or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (initiates), resource (national-network records retrieval across CommonWell/Carequality/QHINs), and outcome (imports external documents into your tenant). This clearly distinguishes it from local-read siblings like healthgorilla_get_patient_everything or healthgorilla_list_documents.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to healthgorilla_poll_query_status for the follow-up step and clarifies this tool only kicks off the query, which is critical for an async operation. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_patient_everything, so sibling selection is only implied.

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