Contract Testing: Get BDCT Consumer Pact Test Results by Consumer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating it's a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., response format, pagination, authentication needs). With annotations present, the bar is lower, but additional details could enhance transparency.

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 relatively concise with a clear front-loaded action and a listed parameter block. However, the parameter listing is redundant with the input schema, and the inclusion of 'Toolset:' could be integrated more efficiently.

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 fetch tool with 4 simple string parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameters. It lacks details on the return format, version format constraints, or error conditions. Given the complexity, it is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, and the description repeats this information without adding nuance. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides the semantic meaning.

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 action ('Fetch') and the resource ('consumer contract verification results for a specific consumer-provider version pair'). It includes the 'Bi-Directional Contract Testing' toolset, which helps context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similarly named sibling tools like 'get_bdct_consumer_contract_verification_results' or 'get_bdct_provider_check_results_by_consumer', leaving potential ambiguity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other BDCT result retrieval tools. The description only states what it does without contextualizing usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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