Get resource history

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

Description adds implementation details (endpoint patterns) beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, but does not explain what the history response contains (e.g., version entries, ordering) or pagination behavior beyond the count parameter.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Description is mostly complete for a read operation with readOnlyHint, but lacks details about the return format (no output schema) and does not mention that the response is typically a Bundle of history entries, which would aid an agent in processing the result.

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 100% with descriptive parameter descriptions, but the tool description adds meaningful context by explaining the three usage modes and how parameters relate (e.g., id requires resourceType), which goes beyond the schema's individual field descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states it fetches version history and specifies three distinct modes based on parameter combinations (with id+resourceType, only resourceType, neither). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_fhir and read_fhir, which serve different purposes.

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?

Description provides explicit context for when to use each combination of parameters, but does not indicate when NOT to use the tool or mention alternative tools for similar tasks.

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