get_medication_request_by_id

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states it retrieves and returns a dictionary, omitting critical details like error handling (e.g., 404 if not found), authorization requirements, or response format beyond 'dictionary'. This is minimal 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 extremely concise: two sentences plus structured Args/Returns. It is front-loaded with the action, and every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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, output schema exists), the description covers the basic function. However, it lacks guidance on error handling, preconditions, or relation to sibling tools. With no annotations, more detail would be beneficial for a complete 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 schema has 0% description coverage for the parameter, but the description adds 'The FHIR MedicationRequest ID', which provides context beyond the schema's bare type 'string'. This helps distinguish from other resource IDs.

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 'Retrieve a specific medication request by ID', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by naming the specific FHIR resource (medication request) and retrieval method (by ID).

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 implies usage when a specific medication request ID is available, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_patients_medication_requests for multiple results). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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