get_fhir_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns configuration settings, but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 brief and front-loaded, stating the purpose in the first sentence and the return in the second. There's no wasted text, but the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the return statement more seamlessly or adding minimal context.

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 has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is adequate but minimal. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but lacks context on usage, behavioral traits, or how it fits with siblings, making it incomplete for optimal agent understanding.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, but it implicitly confirms no parameters are required by not mentioning any. This meets the baseline for zero-parameter tools, though it could briefly note the absence of inputs for clarity.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current FHIR server configuration'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings (like 'read_fhir_resource' or 'search_fhir_resources'), which might also retrieve configuration-related data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as whether this is for administrative settings versus patient data access, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

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