fhir_resolve_codeable_concept

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses vocabulary preference hierarchy, semantic search fallback, unmapped behavior options (error or sentinel), and boolean flags for recommendations and quality. However, it does not mention return format or potential side effects like HTTP status codes or rate limits.

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, no filler, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds distinct value: first sentence states main action and preference, second sentence covers fallback and behavior. Efficient and 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?

Tool has 6 parameters and no output schema. Description covers core logic but omits what the tool returns (e.g., concept ID, error details). Without an output schema, the agent lacks clarity on result structure. Also does not explain the resource_type parameter's role. Could be more complete.

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 67%, but description adds substantial meaning: explains vocabulary preference order, the role of user_selected to override preference, fallback logic using text, and the purpose of on_unmapped, include_recommendations, and include_quality. This goes well beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 explicitly states it resolves a FHIR CodeableConcept with multiple codings, specifies vocabulary preference order (SNOMED > RxNorm > LOINC > CVX > ICD-10), and mentions fallback to text via semantic search. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like fhir_resolve or map_concept.

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 when handling CodeableConcepts with multiple codings and notes the fallback behavior, but does not proactively state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., simpler fhir_resolve, or search_concepts). No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions.

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