request_document_reference_resource

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral rules: not to guess missing data, ask for deletion confirmation, and provide app links. These are valuable beyond the schema. However, it does not mention error handling or response structure, but the output schema covers the latter.

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 structured with a brief intro, a clear 'Rules:' section, and an Args list. It is concise but includes necessary behavioral rules. Every sentence adds value, though the opening sentence is slightly redundant with the second.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage rules, parameters, and return value. It is complete for a CRUD tool with clear resource constraints, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return details. Minor gaps include authentication or pagination, but these are likely handled elsewhere.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by giving a concrete path example ('/DocumentReference?patient=Patient/123') and clarifying that body is for POST/PUT. The schema itself has basic descriptions, but the description's Args section enhances understanding. Despite low schema description coverage, the description compensates adequately.

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 performs CRUD operations specifically on the FHIR DocumentReference resource, distinguishing it from sibling resource-specific tools like request_patient_resource. It uses a specific verb ('Makes an HTTP request') and resource scope ('only on the FHIR DocumentReference resource').

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (for CRUD on DocumentReference) and provides rules: use only provided data, require confirmation for deletion, and return app links. This gives clear usage context and exclusions, even though it does not name alternatives explicitly, the 'only' suffices to differentiate.

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