Contract Testing: Get Latest Pacticipant Version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that omitting the tag returns the overall latest version, but it does not clarify return shape, ordering definition of 'latest', or not-found behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded. However, the 'Parameters' section duplicates what the input schema already states exactly, and the 'Toolset' label adds only marginal context. Some content does not earn its place given the schema coverage.

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 tool with complete schema descriptions and strong annotations, the description is adequate. Still, with no output schema, it could more clearly describe what a 'version' response contains and what 'latest' means operationally, and it does not help disambiguate between the many contract-testing version-related siblings.

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 both parameters. The description repeats the schema's parameter descriptions without adding extra constraints, formats, or examples, meeting the baseline but adding no additional semantic value.

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') and a clear resource ('latest version of a pacticipant'), and notes the optional tag filter. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like contract-testing_get_pacticipant_version or contract-testing_list_pacticipant_versions, but 'latest version' makes the focus reasonably distinct.

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 implies the tool is for fetching the newest version of a pacticipant, optionally filtered by tag, but it does not state when to prefer this over the many sibling get/list/version tools. No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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