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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it returns paginated results in FHIR searchset bundles, supports configurable page sizes (max 1000), and handles complex search capabilities. It doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling, but covers most operational aspects well for a search 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 well-structured with clear sections (overview, key features, args, returns) and uses bullet points for readability. It's appropriately sized for a complex tool but could be slightly more concise—some bullet points are verbose. Overall, it's front-loaded with purpose and efficiently organized, with most sentences earning their 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 tool's complexity (FHIR search with many features), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, features, parameters with examples, and return values, compensating for the lack of annotations. The output schema means it doesn't need to detail return structures, and it provides enough context for effective use.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully compensate. It excels by providing detailed parameter semantics: it explains 'resource_type' as 'FHIR resource type to search' with examples, and 'search_params' as a dictionary with comprehensive examples and common use cases. The 'Args' section adds significant value beyond the bare schema, making parameters clear and actionable.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search FHIR resources using comprehensive Azure FHIR search capabilities.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('FHIR resources'), and platform ('Azure FHIR'), making it highly specific. With no sibling tools, it doesn't need differentiation, but the description is comprehensive and unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 context through its detailed feature list and examples, suggesting it's for complex FHIR queries. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., simpler queries or other FHIR operations). With no sibling tools, this is less critical, but it doesn't provide clear exclusions or prerequisites, leaving usage somewhat open-ended.

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