search_condition

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

The description indicates a read-only operation via the verb 'search' and specifies that it operates on the launch patient, which is a behavioral constraint. It also lists valid category values. However, with no annotations, it does not elaborate on safety, pagination, or potential side effects, leaving some traits implicit.

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 only two sentences, with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the optional filter. This is an excellent example of concise writing.

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 two-parameter tool, the description covers the purpose and one parameter's semantics. An output schema exists to define return values, so the description does not need to cover those. The missing practice explanation is the main gap, but overall it is fairly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 description provides allowed values for the category parameter, adding value beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explain the practice parameter, which is required, leaving a significant gap given 0% schema coverage. It partially compensates but misses one of two parameters.

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 searches Conditions for the launch patient, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_encounter and fhir_search by specifying the resource and scope. The optional category filter is also mentioned, adding further clarity.

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 the use case: searching conditions for the currently launched patient. However, it does not explicitly contrast with fhir_search or list_problems, nor does it state when not to use this tool. It provides context but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions.

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