Contract Testing: Get BDCT Consumer Contract Verification Results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, and the description's 'Fetch' is consistent with those. The description adds the scoping detail of a provider version but does not disclose pagination behavior, response shape, or what happens when no results exist. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and then lists parameters in a readable format. The parameter list is somewhat redundant with the schema, but the overall length is appropriate and every major piece is covered without excessive detail.

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-only operation with full parameter schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the basics needed to call the tool. However, there is no output schema and the description does not clarify what the returned verification results contain or how this tool differs from the many related BDCT verification-result siblings, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 description repeats the parameter names, requiredness, and defaults already present in the input schema. It adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb ('Fetch') and a specific resource ('consumer contract verification results') scoped to a given provider version. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools through the resource phrase, but does not explicitly contrast with similarly named tools like get_bdct_provider_contract_verification_results.

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 clear context — this is for retrieving consumer contract verification results in Bi-Directional Contract Testing for a specific provider version. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling verification-result tools or when not to use it.

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