bsp_check_consent

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It signals a read-only inspection operation through the verb 'Check' and discloses exactly what state it reports: connected BEO, authorizations, and token expiry. It could be more explicit that no modification occurs, but the description is not misleading and covers the key behavior.

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 tight sentences: the first states what the tool reports, the second states when to run it. Every clause adds information and there is no filler.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema consent inspection tool, the description is complete. It tells an agent what the tool checks, why it matters, and when to call it. No essential invocation detail is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters; the input schema is an empty object and coverage is 100%. The description correctly implies no user-supplied input is needed by focusing entirely on what the tool inspects, so the baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Check') and a concrete resource ('current consent configuration'), then enumerates exactly what is included: connected BEO, authorized data categories and intents, and token expiry. It is clearly distinguishable as a consent-status inspection tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling bsp_verify_consent.

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 gives an explicit directive: 'Run this first' to understand what data you are allowed to access in this session. This is clear usage context. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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