Contract Testing: Get Deployed Versions for Version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate that this is a safe read operation. It does add that the result is deployment records for a specific version and environment, but it adds no behavioral context such as pagination handling, response format, or ordering. The description is consistent with the annotations and does not contradict them.

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 core purpose sentence is front-loaded and clear, and the parameter list is formatted cleanly. The list is somewhat redundant given the input schema, but the description remains short and readable. No extraneous marketing language or filler is present.

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 retrieval tool with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, without an output schema, it would have been helpful to clarify that results are paginated and whether 'deployment records' means historical records as opposed to currently deployed versions, especially given the sibling tools.

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 every parameter, including defaults for pageNumber and pageSize. The description simply repeats the parameter names, types, requiredness, and defaults already in the schema, adding no new semantic meaning beyond what structured data provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a clear resource ('deployment records'), and narrows the scope to 'a specific pacticipant version in a specific environment.' This distinguishes it from related tools like get_currently_deployed_versions, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with get_released_versions_for_version or mention alternates by name.

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 choose this tool over sibling tools such as get_currently_deployed_versions or get_released_versions_for_version. The 'Toolset: Environments and Deployments' line is categorization, not usage direction. An agent would have to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and first sentence alone.

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