Contract Testing: Get Pacticipant

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read operation. The description's 'Retrieve' wording is consistent with those annotations but adds no behavioral context beyond them—such as return shape, error conditions, or permission requirements—so it does not go beyond what structured metadata already conveys.

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 sentence is concise, front-loaded, and immediately clear about the operation and target. The additional Toolset heading and Parameter list are redundant with schema metadata and do not add information, but the overall size is still economical.

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 single-parameter read operation with strong safety annotations, the description is largely sufficient: it identifies the target resource and lookup key. The main gap is that 'details' is somewhat vague and there is no output schema or mention of what fields will be returned, but this is minor for a tool of this complexity.

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%, and the parameter description in the schema ('Name of the pacticipant (application or service)') is repeated verbatim in the tool description. The description therefore adds no meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance agent understanding.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a resource ('details for a specific pacticipant'), and the lookup key ('by name'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_pacticipants (list all) and get_pacticipant_version (fetch by version), even though those siblings are not named explicitly.

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 phrase 'by name' implies this tool is appropriate when the agent already knows the pacticipant name and needs its details. However, the description does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over list_pacticipants, get_latest_pacticipant_version, or other version-specific tools, nor does it provide any exclusions.

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