get_bc_list_for_package

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, but it only says the tool 'gets' a list and provides no details about authentication, errors, pagination, output shape, or side effects. The read-only nature is implied by the verb but not explicitly disclosed.

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 reasonably short and the main purpose is front-loaded. However, the Usage line contains an incorrect function name, which reduces clarity and makes part of the description untrustworthy.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks important context such as return format, optional header behavior, and how it differs from sibling tools like get_bc_for_package or get_latest_bc_list. An agent could make a basic call using the required parameter, but would have no guidance for edge cases or alternatives.

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 description adds meaningful context for the required 'package' parameter by explaining it is the ID of the Package, which goes beyond the bare schema title 'Package'. However, the optional 'headers_' parameter is not described at all, and with 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates.

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 the tool retrieves a Biomedical Concept list for a specific Package, naming both the verb and the resource. However, it does not differentiate among similar siblings like get_bc_for_package or get_latest_bc_list, which leaves some ambiguity about which tool to prefer.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, such as get_latest_bc_list or get_bc_for_package. The usage example is also misleading because it calls 'get_bc_package' rather than the actual tool name 'get_bc_list_for_package'.

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