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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the underlying endpoint semantics and that the call is non-mutating (does not start a new query) and returns progress counts. It does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, or error/empty-result behavior, but that is a minor gap given the annotation already signals a safe read.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the API-level clarification. The endpoint path detail is somewhat verbose but it is what justifies the 'does not start a query' behavior, so it largely earns its place.

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 single-parameter, read-only status check with no output schema, the description covers purpose, non-mutating behavior, and the shape of what is returned (counts). An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 patientId parameter is already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a marginal note that no facilityId is required, which clarifies the parameter's scope slightly.

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 (check status/progress) on a specific resource (Patient's document query) and even enumerates what the status reports (download + FHIR conversion counts). This cleanly separates it from start_document_query, which initiates rather than reports.

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 disambiguates use: POSTing with only patientId 'returns current status without starting a new query', which tells the agent this is the read-only counterpart to start_document_query. It doesn't name the sibling tool by name, but the when-not condition is unambiguous.

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