Read FHIR Resource

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructiveasi. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: version support for FHIR R4 US Core v9 and R6 ballot3, plus return behavior of a 'redacted resource with PHI protection.' This is meaningful behavioral disclosure for a clinical data 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, followed by a concise note on supported FHIR versions and returned data. Every sentence earns 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?

For a simple read tool with two required parameters and safe annotations, the description covers the operation, resource scope, version support, and return redaction. It does not explain error cases or exact response shape, but those are less critical given the absence of an output schema and the low complexity of the call.

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 50%, with resource_id described and resource_type having an enum. The description says 'by type and ID' and clarifies supported resource versions, but it does not add format details for resource_id or explain which versions apply to specific enum values. It provides marginal compensation but not full extra semantic depth.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read a specific FHIR resource by type and ID.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like fhir_search and search, which are for finding resources rather than reading one by known identifiers.

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 clearly establishes the intended use case—reading a resource when you have its type and ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the contrast with fhir_search is implied strongly enough for an agent to route correctly.

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