Contract Testing: Get BDCT Provider Contract

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Fetch' is consistent with those. The description adds the fact that the returned artifact is an OpenAPI contract scoped to a provider version, but it does not disclose pagination semantics, response format details, or edge cases. This is adequate but not rich behavioral context 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 action sentence is front-loaded and immediately informative, which is good. However, the 'Toolset:' line and the full parameter list duplicate what is already in the input schema and tool name, so part of the description does not earn its place.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description usefully states the return artifact (provider OpenAPI contract for a provider version), which is the key missing context. The required parameters are clear, the annotations cover the read-only/idempotent nature of the call, and no complex nested objects or enum choices exist. Pagination is only minimally contextualized, but the schema defaults are self-explanatory.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, their types, required status, and defaults. The description's parameter block only restates that information and adds no new meaning such as value constraints, formats, or inter-parameter relationships.

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 first sentence names a specific verb ('Fetch'), a precise resource ('provider OpenAPI contract'), and the scoping condition ('for a given provider version'), making the tool unambiguous. This also distinguishes it from sibling tools like contract-testing_get_bdct_provider_contract_verification_results, which target verification results rather than the contract itself.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when an agent needs a provider OpenAPI contract for a specific provider version in Bi-Directional Contract Testing. It provides clear context via required parameters and toolset labeling, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions.

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