FHIR auth status

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

The description adds the behavioral note 'Never prints token or PEM', which is a valuable safety disclosure not available in annotations (since none are provided). It also lists exactly what will be reported. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it can fail (e.g., if discovery hasn't been run), or what the response format will be. Given zero annotations, the description carries the burden but provides only partial behavioral 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 a single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the verb 'Report' and then enumerates the status fields. It ends with a concise safety disclaimer. There is no fluff or repetition; every word earns its place. This is an exemplary model of 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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description lists all the status values it reports and adds a safety constraint. It lacks details on the exact output structure (e.g., JSON keys vs. plain text) and does not specify whether the tool requires prior setup (like discovery), but these are minor given the tool's simplicity. Overall, it provides enough context for an agent to call and interpret the results reasonably.

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 tool has zero parameters (schema is an empty object), so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4 according to the rubric. The description correctly mentions the fields that will be reported, which are effectively the tool's 'output' rather than input parameters. Since there are no parameters to document, the description adds what little meaning is needed.

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 the verb 'Report' and lists specific status fields (mode, ISS, R4 lock, etc.), making the tool's purpose clear: to report FHIR authentication status. It is distinguishable from siblings like fhir_search and fhir_read by focusing on auth state rather than data operations, and from smart_discover by being a status check. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings in the text.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It doesn't mention scenarios like 'before calling fhir_search' or 'when you need to verify authentication state'. The purpose is implicit from the name and list of status fields, but no explicit usage context is given, and no exclusions or alternatives are referenced.

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