Compiled Truth Timeline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds 'Redacted, audited' and mentions curation_state and quality_score surfaces, plus an embeddable review UI link. 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?

Three sentences, each adding value: first states core function, second gives usage context, third lists additional outputs. No wasted words.

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?

Tool has two required params and no output schema, but description adequately explains the key outputs (provenance, curation_state, quality_score, UI link). Could mention any rate limits or performance characteristics, but not essential for a read-only tool with annotations.

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 covers both parameters fully (100% coverage). Description does not add new details about parameters themselves, but explains what the tool produces (provenance, curation_state, quality_score, UI link), which indirectly clarifies the expected input usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it returns 'current best understanding of a FHIR resource plus the append-only evidence trail (Provenance entries)'. Distinguishes from siblings like fhir_read by focusing on compiled truth with provenance and quality indicators.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this before presenting resource-specific facts to a patient', providing specific context for its use. Does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the sibling list is large and this guidance helps narrow down.

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