request_encounter_resource

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It includes important rules: requiring explicit user data for create/update, confirmation for delete, and providing app (not api) links. It also states the return type. While it doesn't elaborate on side effects or error handling, the given rules cover key behavioral expectations.

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 Rules, Args, and Returns sections, and it front-loads the purpose. Some redundancy exists (e.g., 'use only data explicitly provided' and 'Do not guess' are similar), but the overall length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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, and return type, which is useful. However, it fails to explain the required 'request' wrapper parameter, making the invocation structure unclear. Given the nested schema and output schema present, this omission impacts completeness for correct tool invocation.

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 lists 'method', 'path', and 'body' as direct arguments, but the input schema defines a single required 'request' object containing these fields. This omission is misleading and could cause an agent to construct arguments incorrectly. The description does provide examples for path and clarifies body usage, but the missing wrapper structure is a critical gap.

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 makes HTTP requests to the FHIR server and performs CRUD operations specifically on the Encounter resource. The phrase 'only on the FHIR Encounter resource' differentiates it from sibling tools for other resources.

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 ('to perform CRUD operations only on the FHIR Encounter resource') and provides operation-specific rules (e.g., confirm before delete, use only user-provided data for create/update). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it beyond the resource restriction.

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