fhir_resolve

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses fallback behavior, optional include_recommendations and include_quality, and on_unmapped behavior, but does not specify the exact response format or required permissions.

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 sentences: first states purpose, second adds features, third gives concrete examples. No redundant or irrelevant information. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given 8 parameters with full schema descriptions and no output schema, description adequately covers key behaviors (fallback, recommendations, unmapped handling). However, it could clarify parameter priorities (e.g., system/code vs display) and response structure.

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 provides 100% coverage, but description adds value: explains display for semantic search fallback, include_recommendations for Phoebe recommendations, include_quality for mapping quality signal, and on_unmapped for error vs sentinel behavior. This extra context aids agent understanding.

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?

Description clearly states the tool resolves FHIR coded values to OMOP concepts and CDM target tables, with specific examples (e.g., SNOMED code 44054006). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_concepts and explore_concept by focusing on mapping.

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?

Description mentions supports text-only fallback and optional recommendations, but does not explicitly explain when to use this tool vs the sibling fhir_resolve_codeable_concept or other mapping tools. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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