Contract Testing: Get Pacticipant

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It confirms read-only retrieval but doesn't disclose what details are returned or any side effects. Annotations already convey safety, so the description doesn't significantly enhance transparency.

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 description is short and to the point, with no extraneous content. It front-loads the purpose and includes a toolset label for context. The parameter listing is somewhat redundant but not verbose.

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 tool with one parameter and rich annotations, the description is adequate. However, it lacks information about the return value (e.g., what fields or object shape to expect), which could be helpful for an agent.

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% (the only parameter's description matches the text). The description repeats the schema's parameter description without adding new meaning, so it provides no extra value beyond the structured input.

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 clearly states 'Retrieve details for a specific pacticipant by name', specifying the verb, resource, and lookup method. It distinguishes from sibling tools like contract-testing_list_pacticipants (list all) and contract-testing_create_pacticipant (create).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as when to use contract-testing_get_pacticipant_version or contract-testing_get_pacticipant_label. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite context is provided.

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