get_openemr_api_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the source and scope of the fetch, but says nothing about return format, pagination, or whether network/GitHub access constraints apply. It's adequate for a low-risk read operation but not rich.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and source, then scope, then usage triggers. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

For a single-enum-parameter fetch tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description conveys enough to call it correctly: source, coverage, and when to use it. Minor gaps remain around the returned document 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the single 'doc' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the meaning of each enum value. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch developer API documentation') and pins down the source (OpenEMR GitHub repository). It explicitly distinguishes its scope from the sibling wiki tools by noting it covers REST/FHIR APIs NOT documented on the wiki.

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?

Gives clear usage guidance ('Use this for anything related to FHIR, REST endpoints, authentication, or SMART on FHIR') and implicitly routes wiki-type queries elsewhere. It doesn't name a specific sibling as the alternative, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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