Contract Testing: Get BDCT Cross-Contract Verification Results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not explain pagination behavior, result shape, or any caveats about how the provider version maps to results, so the description adds little beyond the annotations.

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 clear and front-loaded, but the subsequent parameter list duplicates the input schema almost verbatim. The description is not overly long, yet it contains redundant content that does not add value beyond the structured schema.

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 fetch with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and many similar sibling tools, it would benefit from stating what the results contain or how this tool differs from other verification-result fetchers.

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 simply repeats the parameter names, defaults, and short descriptions already present in the input schema. It adds no additional meaning or usage nuance, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Fetch'), a resource ('cross-contract verification results'), and a scope ('for a given provider version') in Bi-Directional Contract Testing. It is clear and matches the tool name, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling verification-result 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many similar BDCT verification-result tools in the sibling list. It only labels the toolset and provides parameters, with no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or selection criteria.

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