request_document_reference_resource

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: the 'Rules' section explains data fidelity expectations, deletion confirmation, and link requirements. This goes well beyond basic CRUD semantics.

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 well-organized with a clear opening line, a bulleted 'Rules' section, and a concise 'Args' list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure aids scannability.

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?

The tool's complexity (CRUD, confirmation steps, resource-specific constraints) is fully addressed. The description covers operational rules, parameters, and return type, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, but the description explains all three args (method, path, body) with examples and context. The example path clarifies usage, and the body description explicitly ties it to POST/PUT methods, adding meaning beyond the 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 'Makes an HTTP request to the FHIR server' and specifically scopes to 'only on the FHIR DocumentReference resource.' This distinguishes it from sibling resource-specific tools with a clear verb-resource pairing.

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?

Explicit rules define when to use this tool: CRUD operations on DocumentReference only. It also provides operation-specific guidance (e.g., delete requires user confirmation, don't invent data), effectively telling the agent when and how to use it.

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