request_encounter_resource

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and covers important behaviors: CRUD scope, data integrity rules, deletion confirmation, and return type. It lacks details on error handling or authentication, but the core behavioral traits are well 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 organized into clear sections (rules, args, returns) and contains no filler. It is slightly longer than necessary, but every sentence provides useful guidance or context.

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 tool's moderate complexity and lack of annotations, the description is fairly complete: it specifies the resource scope, CRUD operations, user-data constraints, deletion confirmation, and return format. It doesn't mention authentication or error responses, but with an output schema present these are not critical gaps.

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 description includes an Args section that explains method, path, and body, with an example path for Encounter resources. Although the input schema also describes method and path, the description adds clarity on body optionality and the path format, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage of the outer 'request' parameter.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Makes an HTTP request to the FHIR server' and 'perform CRUD operations only on the FHIR Encounter resource.' It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like request_patient_resource and request_generic_resource by limiting its scope to encounters.

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 explicit usage rules: use only user-provided data for create/update, require confirmation for delete, and provide app links in responses. It also implicitly defines when not to use this tool (for non-Encounter resources), which is clear guidance against the sibling tools.

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