bsp_get_biorecords

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the prerequisite consent state and intent, and pre-announces the response contents (BSP format, values, units, reference ranges, collection timestamps). It does not mention ordering, pagination behavior, or error cases, but it covers the most important operational traits.

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 and 39 words, with the core purpose first, then the authorization requirement, then the return format. Every sentence carries useful information without redundancy.

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?

The definition is complete for a read tool with five optional parameters covered by a detailed schema: the description supplies consent requirements and response contents, while the schema supplies all parameter constraints and examples. Any missing ordering or pagination details are minor given the rich schema and clear invocation path.

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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a meaningful description with examples, so the baseline of 3 applies. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, only describing the overall return payload.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Read BioRecords from the user's BEO', and further defines the output as biological measurements in BSP format with values, units, reference ranges, and timestamps. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like bsp_submit_biorecord (write) and bsp_get_beo_summary (summary) without needing to open their schemas.

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 establishes clear contextual usage: it is the read endpoint for biological records and requires an active ConsentToken with READ_RECORDS intent, and the categories parameter schema points to bsp_list_categories for available codes. It does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use cases or name alternative siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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