fhir_search_next

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the return type (FHIR Bundle) and the presence of '_next_url' for further pages, but omits other behavioral traits like read-only nature or potential errors. However, the behavior is straightforward for a pagination tool.

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 very concise: two sentences that front-load the action and provide essential details without any fluff.

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 simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers all necessary aspects: input, behavior, and output format.

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 single parameter 'next_url' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by clarifying its origin ('from a previous fhir_search Bundle'), but this is largely redundant with the schema description.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: following a Bundle pagination link returned by fhir_search. It distinguishes itself from siblings like fhir_search and fhir_read by focusing on pagination.

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 specifies when to use the tool (after a previous fhir_search result) and what input to provide ('_next_url'). It implicitly excludes use without a prior search, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

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