get_medications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by noting the list includes outside records, which explains the open-world nature, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether outside-record retrieval depends on patient consent or connected sources.

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?

Two short lines, front-loaded with the core action and follow-up detail on the status argument. No filler sentences and nothing redundant with the name.

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-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and how to control scope, which is sufficient. A brief note on whether outside records require an active connection/consent would close the remaining gap.

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 carry the parameter burden, and it does: it identifies the default ('active' for current meds), the special aggregate value ('all' for full history), and that a specific FHIR status may be passed. It stops short of explaining what 'completed'/'stopped' return or how 'all' differs from passing each status.

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 ('Get the ... medication list') and scopes it to the signed-in patient, with a parenthetical clarifying it covers both prescriptions and outside records. The resource is distinct enough from siblings like get_patient and get_access_log that an agent can select it without opening the schema, though no sibling is explicitly named.

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 makes the default behavior explicit ('active' by default) and explains what 'all' means, which implicitly guides usage. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over get_patient or any other sibling, and gives no when-not guidance.

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