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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true; the description adds substantial context beyond that: it is asynchronous, imports documents into the caller's tenant, is state-changing, requires a Prefer: respond-async header, and returns a Location poll URL. It does not describe rate limits, cost, or how much data gets imported, so it stops short of a 5.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, then the technical mechanism, then the poll handoff. Every clause carries information; nothing is filler.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the trigger, the mechanism, the return (poll URL) and the next step, which is what an agent needs. It could still say what document types or time range are retrieved, but the essentials are present.

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 coverage is 100% and the single patient_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the schema already carries the burden. The description only restates the id as {id} in the FHIR path, adding no syntax or semantic detail. 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) plus the exact resource and scope: an asynchronous national-network records retrieval across CommonWell/Carequality/QHINs that imports external documents. This is unmistakably distinct from siblings like healthgorilla_get_patient or healthgorilla_fhir_search.

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 names the follow-up tool (healthgorilla_poll_query_status) and the poll URL to use, which tells the agent the workflow. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over alternatives like get_patient_everything, so the exclusion guidance is absent.

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