Contract Testing: Get BDCT Provider by Consumer Version

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description does not add behavioral details beyond what is stated, such as response format, error handling, or authentication requirements. It maintains consistency with 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 description is a single sentence followed by a toolset label and a parameter list. The parameter list is redundant with the schema and can be considered wasteful. The structure could be improved by removing the duplicate parameter definitions and focusing on the purpose.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should provide hints about the return structure (e.g., 'returns an OpenAPI contract as JSON'). It also does not mention potential error conditions (e.g., version pair not found). Given the complexity of 4 required parameters, the description lacks completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists the same parameter names and descriptions as the schema, adding no extra semantic context about value constraints, formats, or relationships between parameters. The agent gains no additional insight beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Fetch', the resource 'provider OpenAPI contract', and the scope 'for a specific consumer-provider version pair in Bi-Directional Contract Testing'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like contract-testing_get_bdct_consumer_by_consumer_version and contract-testing_get_bdct_provider_contract by emphasizing the consumer version parameter.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer context from the name alone.

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