search_observation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only states the action ('Search Observations') without disclosing whether it is read-only, pagination behavior, required authentication context, or any other runtime semantics. This is a significant gap for an unannotated tool.

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 with no redundancy. It conveys the core purpose and category options efficiently, earning its place.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, return values are covered. The description states the scope and category filter, which is adequate for a simple search tool. However, it leaves gaps around parameter semantics and behavioral details, making it minimally viable but not fully complete.

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%. The description only hints at the 'category' parameter by listing its allowed values (laboratory, vital-signs, etc.) but provides no explanation for the required 'practice' parameter or the optional 'code' and 'date' parameters. It does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 verb 'Search' + resource 'Observations' with a specific scope ('for the launch patient') and a distinguishing filter ('by USCDI category'). It is specific enough to differentiate from sibling tools like search_encounter or search_condition.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (for the launch patient's observations, filtered by USCDI category). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use fhir_search instead), so it stops short of full guidance.

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