get_coverage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It simply says 'Read', which is a safe operation, but it doesn't disclose error behavior (e.g., not found), required permissions, or any other behavioral traits. The description adds little beyond what the tool name already implies.

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 sentence, directly to the point, and front-loaded with the main action. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary verbosity.

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 presence of an output schema means return values are already documented. The description covers the core purpose of fetching a Coverage by id, but it omits any explanation of the practice parameter, which is required and not self-explanatory. This is a notable gap for a simple two-parameter tool.

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 two required parameters, id and practice, with zero description coverage. The description mentions 'by id', which clarifies that id is the identifier, but it does not explain the purpose or role of the practice parameter. This leaves a critical parameter ambiguous.

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 'Read a Coverage resource by id' clearly states the action (read), the specific resource (Coverage), and the selection method (by id). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_patient or get_practitioner by targeting the Coverage resource specifically.

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 a clear usage: fetch a single Coverage by its id. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use fhir_search instead. This is clear context without explicit alternatives, so a 4 is appropriate.

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