map_hl7_to_fhir

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It compensates by detailing the return structure (FHIR resource, element path, ConceptMap reference, conversion notes), but omits safety traits (read-only status), error handling behavior for invalid field_refs, or implications of the '[Premium]' tag (rate limits, access restrictions).

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 tightly constructed sentences with zero waste: first states the transformation purpose, second states the return values. The '[Premium]' tag is front-loaded and material to usage.

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 conversion tool without output schema, the description adequately covers the conversion direction, FHIR version specificity (R4), and return value structure. Minor gap in not describing error scenarios or validation behavior.

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%, providing complete parameter documentation. The description mentions 'segments/fields' generally but does not add semantic context, constraints, or format guidance beyond what the schema already specifies for 'field_ref'.

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 states a specific verb ('Map') and clear resource types ('HL7 v2 segments/fields' to 'FHIR R4 resources'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'map_dicom_to_hl7' (different direction/format) and 'explain_hl7_segment' (explanation vs. conversion).

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 through the specific domain (HL7-to-FHIR conversion), but provides no explicit 'when to use' guidance, prerequisites (e.g., understanding SEGMENT-POSITION format), or alternatives to this mapping approach.

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