request_family_member_history_resource

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by adding key constraints: using only user-provided data, requiring confirmation for delete, and providing app-specific links. It also describes the return as 'JSON response from the FHIR server.' While it does not mention authentication or side effects verbosely, the provided rules go beyond the schema and give meaningful behavioral context.

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-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement, followed by a bulleted list of rules, then an Args section. Each sentence earns its place; there is no redundant filler. It is slightly long due to the rules, but they are essential for safe usage. Front-loaded purpose makes it easy to scan.

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 complexity as a CRUD wrapper with multiple methods, the description covers resource-specific constraints, argument details, and return format. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to enumerate response fields. It provides sufficient context for an agent to select and use the tool correctly, though it could mention error handling or authentication without making it notably more complete.

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?

Although the schema describes method and path, the description's Args section adds practical meaning with examples (e.g., path format '/FamilyMemberHistory?patient=Patient/123') and clarifies body usage. Given that the context reports 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates effectively by explaining each parameter's role and providing examples, adding value 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 the tool's function: 'Makes an HTTP request to the FHIR server' and specifically scopes it to 'CRUD operations only on the FHIR FamilyMemberHistory resource.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools for other FHIR resources and the generic resource tool. The verb 'perform CRUD operations' and the explicit resource name make the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context by stating the tool should be used 'only on the FHIR FamilyMemberHistory resource,' which serves as an exclusionary guideline. It also includes operational rules, such as not guessing missing data and requiring user confirmation before deletion, which guide when specific actions are appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools by name, so there is no strong 'use X instead' guidance.

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