get_capability_statement

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Fetch' clearly signals a read-only operation and the endpoint adds context, but it does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. This is adequate for a simple read but lacks richer behavioral detail.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose and endpoint. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple one-parameter read tool, the description gives the core purpose and endpoint, but it omits the meaning of the required 'practice' parameter and provides no usage alternatives. Since there is no output schema, it also does not describe the return format, though 'Fetch CapabilityStatement' implies the response. Overall, it is minimally adequate with notable gaps.

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?

The input schema has one required parameter 'practice' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description does not explicitly explain how 'practice' maps to the {base} in the endpoint, leaving the parameter's meaning largely unexplained. It provides only a marginal hint via the endpoint template.

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 the tool fetches the server CapabilityStatement, with the explicit endpoint ({base}/metadata). This is a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like fhir_get or fhir_search.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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