Fetch a patient's full record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds the behavioral context that it fetches a large bundle of resources, but does not detail pagination or performance implications. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence defines purpose and endpoint; the second gives actionable parameter guidance. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

For a tool that returns a large bundle of resources, the description covers the key points: what is returned, optional filters, and the endpoint. Without an output schema, it could mention pagination or response format, but it is sufficient for a read-only operation.

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% so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that `types` and `since` are recommended for limiting response size, providing context beyond the schema descriptions. This justifies a 4.

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 'Fetch all resources in a patient's compartment' with specific examples (conditions, observations, etc.) and the FHIR endpoint. It distinguishes from sibling tools like read_fhir (single resource) and search_fhir (query-based).

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 recommends using `types` and `since` to keep responses manageable, providing explicit guidance for efficient use. It implies this is for comprehensive patient data retrieval but does not explicitly contrast with siblings for when to use alternatives.

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