bsp_get_beo_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals a consent requirement that is not visible in the schema ('Requires active session consent') and describes what returned data will include, which gives the agent expectations. It does not mention possible errors or absence of side effects, but for a read-only getter the consent caveat and content disclosure are meaningful.

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 main functional scence is front-loaded, followed by a one-line usage directive. Every clause adds value: what it does, what data it covers, consent requirement, and the ordering relative to bsp_get_biorecords.

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 that there are no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: return contents, consent precondition, and tool ordering. It gives an agent enough to decide when to call the tool and what to expect from it. Missing details like error behavior are not crippling for a 0-parameter read-only summary.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description correctly omits parameter discussion, focusing elsewhere. It adds no unnecessary parameter content.

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 and resource ('Get a structured overview of the user's biological profile') and then enumerates the exact content categories: which categories exist, record counts, most recent measurement dates, and data completeness. It clearly differentiates from bsp_get_biorecords by framing this as the higher-level scope summary.

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?

Provides an explicit usage instruction: 'Use this before bsp_get_biorecords to understand data scope.' It also states the consent prerequisite, giving the agent a concrete precondition and a sibling-tool relationship. This is strong, usable guidance.

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