search_medication_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It states the patient scope and optional status filter, and 'Search' implies a non-mutating operation. However, it omits authorization needs, potential pagination, and any limitations—serviceable but minimal.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant or filler content. It earns every word.

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?

Though the tool is simple, the description leaves the required 'practice' parameter entirely unexplained and does not mention what the returned resources look like. The presence of an output schema helps, but the lack of annotation coverage and opaque required parameter make this incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It only mentions the optional status filter but does not describe valid status values or the required 'practice' parameter, leaving a critical parameter unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), identifies the exact resource ('MedicationRequests'), and clarifies the scope ('for the launch patient'), which clearly distinguishes it from generic fhir_search and sibling resource-specific searches.

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?

It communicates when to use the tool: when you need medication requests for the launch patient. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like fhir_search, but the patient-scoped context is clear enough for an agent to make a reasonable selection.

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