Latest Observations

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with 'Get' and 'Returns'. It adds behavior detail 'by storage order', which is useful. No contradictions. With annotations covering safety, the description provides additional ordering context.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence efficiently states the core function, and the second adds standard reference and ordering behavior. No unnecessary 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?

For a tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description explains the core operation (last N per code, FHIR standard, storage order). It does not detail return format or empty results, but the information provided is sufficient for basic usage.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description only reinforces 'per code' for the code parameter but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score is appropriate as no additional semantic value is provided.

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 'Get', resource 'observations per code', and explicitly references the standard FHIR $lastn operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fhir_search by specifying 'per code' and 'last N' semantics.

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 indicates it's the standard way to retrieve last N observations per code but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like fhir_search. It lacks guidance on exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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