Fetch Health Record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: server-side PHI redaction, return of full document with metadata, and 'ChatGPT-connector-compatible' operation. No contradictions.

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, concise sentence that packs essential information: purpose, id format, return content, and redaction. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could benefit from slight restructuring for clarity.

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 fetch tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the inputs, return value, and server-side processing. It does not discuss error handling or permissions, but the annotations cover safety.

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 coverage is 100%, and the parameter description in the schema is identical to the usage in the tool description. The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 it fetches a single FHIR resource by ID and returns the full document with PHI redacted. It specifies the id format 'ResourceType/id', distinguishing it from search endpoints. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'fhir_read', which likely serves a similar purpose.

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 usage after a search by stating 'as returned by search', but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fhir_read' or 'fhir_search'. No mention of when not to use it.

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