get_bc_for_package

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation through the word "Get," but discloses nothing about return shape, potential errors, authorization requirements, or how packages/versions are resolved. The typo in the usage example also slightly undermines its reliability.

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 short and front-loaded, with a clean Args section and usage example. It is mostly efficient, but the usage example contains a formatting typo ("BIOM EDICALCONCEPT_ID") and repeats information already present in the Args list, so it is not flawless.

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 simple single-item retrieval with two required parameters, the description is minimally viable: it gives the purpose, the required IDs, and an invocation example. However, with no output schema and no mention of the optional headers_ parameter or return behavior, an agent is left without complete context for confidently using the tool against several similar siblings.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the two required parameters well: package is "the ID of the package" and biomedicalconcept_id is "the ID of the Biomedical Concept to retrieve." However, the optional headers_ parameter is entirely undocumented, leaving a gap in the parameter surface.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Get a specific Biomedical Concept from a specific package." This clearly conveys what the tool does and distinguishes it from list-returning siblings by emphasizing specificity, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like get_bc_list_for_package.

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 an argument list and usage example but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_latest_bc or get_bc_list_for_package. It does not state conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, so the agent must infer the right context from the name and one-line purpose.

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