get_patient_medication_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It clearly states that the tool returns a dictionary of medication requests, which is adequate for a read-only retrieval. However, it does not mention potential limitations like pagination, error handling, or authorization requirements, which would enhance 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 efficient, using a docstring format with clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundant information. It is appropriately front-loaded with the purpose statement.

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 (3 parameters, 1 required, output schema exists), the description covers the essential information: what it does, parameters, and return type. It lacks details on possible error responses or integration with FHIR specifics, but overall it is sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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 add meaning. It describes 'patient_id' as the FHIR patient ID, 'status' as optional filter with example values (active, completed, cancelled), and 'intent' similarly (order, plan, proposal). This adds sufficient context beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource 'medication requests for a specific patient'. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_medication_request_by_id' which retrieves a single request, while this tool lists all requests for a patient.

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 for listing medication requests per patient with optional filters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_medication_request_by_id' for single requests or other patient-specific list tools. No '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.