search_encounter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden for transparency. 'Search' implies a read-only operation, and 'for the launch patient' adds scope, but it lacks details on pagination, authorization, or constraints beyond status/date filters. It is adequate but not rich.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the core purpose and omitting unnecessary words. It is 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?

Although an output schema exists, the description remains incomplete for a 3-parameter tool: it fails to explain the required 'practice' parameter and gives no guidance on pagination or relation to other search tools. The missing required parameter is a notable contextual gap.

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 mentions 'status/date filters', clarifying the optional parameters, but it completely omits the required 'practice' parameter, which is critical for the tool to function. With 0% schema coverage from the description, this is a significant gap.

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 for Encounters, scoped to the launch patient, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that search other FHIR resources. The verb 'Search' and resource 'Encounters' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (searching encounters for the launch patient) and mentions optional filters, but it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name when to prefer generic fhir_search over this tool.

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