Contract Testing: Get BDCT X-Contract 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, and the description's word 'Fetch' is consistent with those. The description adds the scoping constraint 'specific consumer-provider version pair' but does not disclose result shape, pagination behavior, or potential error conditions, so it contributes only modest 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 first sentence is concise and informative. However, the 'Toolset' line is redundant with the title, and the explicit Parameters block duplicates the input schema almost verbatim, adding bulk without new information.

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 read-only fetch tool with full parameter schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is minimally viable: it specifies the resource and all required identifiers. Yet there is no output schema and no description of what the returned verification results contain or how pagination behaves, which leaves some ambiguity when an agent interprets the response.

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 six parameters with names, types, defaults, and descriptions. The description's Parameters section merely repeats that information and does not add semantic value such as value formats, parameter relationships, or interpretation of the pagination fields.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('cross-contract verification results'), and the scope ('specific consumer-provider version pair'). It is not vague or tautological, but it does not differentiate this tool from near-siblings like contract-testing_get_bdct_cross-contract_verification_results or the other 'by consumer' BDCT getters, so it does not earn a 5.

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 about when to choose this tool over the many similar BDCT result-fetching siblings. No alternatives are named, no exclusions are stated, and no 'use this when...' context is provided beyond the fact that a consumer and provider version pair is required.

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