Search FHIR resources

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is safe for reads. The description adds valuable behavioral context: HTTP GET method, parameter passthrough, pagination behavior, and response size control. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core action and HTTP method, the second provides crucial usage tips. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema, but description explains the pagination response (hasNextPage flag). For a search tool with moderate complexity, it covers essential aspects: parameters, pagination, response size. Could mention more about return format but is sufficient.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions. The description adds extra meaning: params can include FHIR chaining, _include, _revinclude, and mentions _elements, _summary, _count which are not in schema but are related. Adds value beyond 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 it searches resources of a given type via GET, and the title 'Search FHIR resources' reinforces this. It distinguishes from siblings like read_fhir (single resource retrieval) and patient_everything (specific patient bundle).

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 guidance on when to use and how: pass parameters as-is, use _elements/_summary for small responses, paginate with _count and hasNextPage flag. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use but siblings imply alternatives.

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