get_patient_observations

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states retrieval and returns a dictionary, but omits potential issues like pagination, rate limits, or if results are complete. The read-only nature is inferred but not explicitly stated. Missing details about what happens if patient not found.

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 concise, using a clear Args/Returns structure. Every sentence adds value. No superfluous text. Front-loaded with purpose.

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 complexity (many sibling tools, optional filters) and presence of output schema (alleviating need to describe returns in detail), the description is fairly complete. Could mention if results are paginated or limited, but overall adequate.

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%, but description adds significant meaning: category 'vital-signs, laboratory, etc.', code 'LOINC code', date 'YYYY-MM-DD format or date range', patient_id 'FHIR patient ID'. This goes beyond the bare schema.

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 observations for a specific patient' with a specific verb and resource. It lists parameters that imply filtering. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_patient_vital_signs or get_patient_lab_results, which could be seen as subsets.

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 provides optional filters but no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many specialized siblings (e.g., get_patient_vital_signs vs. using category filter). No when-not or alternative tool mentions, and no prerequisites stated.

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