get_patient_zus_upid

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool searches for a Patient and extracts the UPID, and mentions it returns 'an error message if not found.' However, it lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, or what specific error messages might be returned, leaving behavioral gaps.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by context, parameters, and returns. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second provides context, the third explains the search logic, and the last two detail parameters and returns, with no wasted words.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, context, parameters, and return behavior. However, it could improve by addressing authentication or error specifics, though the output schema may handle return values.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining each parameter's purpose: 'first_name: Patient's first name', 'last_name: Patient's last name', and 'builder_id: Optional Zus builder ID (string) to filter the search.' This clarifies semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format constraints or examples.

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: 'Get the Zus UPID (Universal Patient ID) for a Patient resource from Zus FHIR server.' It specifies the exact action (get), resource (Zus UPID), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on extracting UPIDs rather than general FHIR operations like read_fhir_resource or search_fhir_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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'This is a Zus-specific tool for working with Zus Health's FHIR API' and 'Searches for a Patient by first and last name.' It implies usage for Zus-specific UPID extraction but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings.

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