get_coded_entries

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses that this is a read operation that returns flat records with specific fields and optionally filters by status. It does not mention destructive actions, authentication, or rate limits, but for a read-only tool the disclosure is sufficient. The behavior is transparent for typical use.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every sentence provides value with no redundancy. Ideal conciseness.

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 no annotations or output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, typical use case, return format, and optional filtering. It lacks details on edge cases (e.g., invalid resource type, empty results) but is complete enough for primary 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that resource_type is the type of resource (suggesting conditions, medications, etc.) and that status is an optional filter with example 'active'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, but does not fully clarify valid resource types or constraints.

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 reads coded identity of every resource of a type in the loaded bundle as flat records with specific fields. It specifies the resource types (conditions, medications, allergies, observations) and that it resolves medicationReference. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_resources or resolve_reference, though not explicitly compared.

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 advises to call this first for questions about conditions, medications, allergies, or observations, providing clear usage context. It also notes that it resolves medicationReference automatically. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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