Contract Testing: Get BDCT Consumer by Consumer Version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond identifying the resource, such as pagination behavior, return format, or what happens if no matching contract exists. It does not contradict the annotations, so the score stays at a baseline 3.

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 opening sentence is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the 'Parameters' section duplicates information already present in the input schema, adding length without value. A shorter description relying on the schema would have been more efficient.

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 read operation with all parameters documented in the schema, the description provides enough to invoke the tool. Yet it omits details about the response shape (no output schema) and how pageNumber/pageSize affect results, and it doesn't clarify the difference from the many similar sibling tools. This leaves the agent with some ambiguity.

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 the parameters section in the description simply repeats the schema's property descriptions. It adds no extra meaning about formats, constraints, or how the parameters interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents all parameters.

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 action and resource: 'Fetch the consumer Pact contract for a specific consumer-provider version pair in Bi-Directional Contract Testing.' This clearly identifies what the tool returns and the precise selection criteria. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely named siblings like get_bdct_consumer_contracts or get_bdct_provider_by_consumer_version, so it stops short of a 5.

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 mentions 'Toolset: Bi-Directional Contract Testing' but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many related get_bdct_* siblings. The phrase 'specific consumer-provider version pair' implies when it is appropriate, but no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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