FHIR search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares a GET request, response type (searchset), resourceType allowlist, _count limits, single-page behavior, and explicitly states it does not create resources ('does not invent Patients'). Auth and error handling are absent, but the key read-only and pagination traits are disclosed.

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, packing essential details into five short sentences. It front-loads the HTTP method and resource pattern, then lists constraints without filler or 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 three parameters including a nested object, zero schema coverage, and no output schema, the description supplies key facts (resourceType allowlist, _count limits, single page, read-only), but omits the meaning of 'iss' and the syntax for search parameters in 'params'. These gaps leave an agent without full construction guidance.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains resourceType via the allowlist and gives _count default/max, but does not define 'iss' (presumably the FHIR base URL) or the general structure/keys of the 'params' object. Meaning is added for resourceType and partially for _count, but iss and general params remain undocumented.

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 'GET {iss}/{resourceType} as FHIR R4 searchset' with a specific verb and resource, and lists the allowlisted resource types. This distinguishes it from sibling fhir_read (single resource read) and other tools by implying search vs discovery/auth.

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 a search/query use case via HTTP GET and resourceType allowlist, but does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use it. The context suggests fhir_read is for single resources, but no explicit routing is provided; usage is implied rather than stated.

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