get_procedure_by_id

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

No annotations are present, so the description must provide behavioral context. It only states 'Retrieve a specific procedure' without disclosing side effects, error behavior, or whether it returns a full resource, subset, or summary.

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 very short and to the point, with no wasted words. The structure (purpose, args, returns) is clear but could be expanded without losing conciseness.

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 simple retrieval tool with an output schema, the description adequately states its purpose and parameter. However, with no annotations and many siblings, it omits behavioral details like idempotency, rate limits, or typical usage scenarios.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for the parameter. The description adds 'The FHIR Procedure ID', which provides minimal context (FHIR, Procedure) but does not specify format, constraints, or examples. Given the low schema coverage, the description should compensate more.

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 the verb (Retrieve), resource (procedure), and identifier (by ID). It is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this tool from other get_*_by_id siblings, relying on the name for uniqueness.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_patient_procedures or search tools. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or use cases.

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