fhir_resolve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses fallback behavior (semantic search), optional recommendations, and unmapped handling, but does not explain output format (e.g., single vs. multiple results), ordering, or error behavior beyond the on_unmapped parameter. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

The description is relatively concise with three sentences and an example. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the example aids clarity. Minor verbosity could be trimmed, but overall it is well-structured.

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?

The description covers input parameters and general behavior but lacks details on the output structure (e.g., what fields are returned for the resolved concept and target table). With no output schema, this gap is notable. Also, given the sibling list, more contextual differentiation would improve completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds value by explaining the 'display' parameter's role in semantic search fallback and the 'include_recommendations' parameter's relation to Phoebe recommendations. This extra context enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it resolves FHIR coded values to OMOP standard concepts and CDM target tables, with examples for system/code and text-only input. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'fhir_resolve_codeable_concept', which may have similar functionality.

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 provides examples of when to use the tool (e.g., system/code or text-only display) but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like 'map_concept' or 'fhir_resolve_codeable_concept'. Usage context is implied but not clearly stated.

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