Contract Testing: Get Pacticipant Label

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and an output schema exists, so the disclosure bar is low. The description contributes only the fact that the operation is an existence/membership check rather than a retrieval of the label object; it says nothing about permissions, error behavior for unknown pacticipants, or whether a negative result is an error or an empty answer.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, and the toolset tag is a useful one-line locator. The parameter block, however, is pure duplication of the input schema and consumes roughly half the description length without earning its place.

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 two-parameter read-only existence check with full schema coverage, complete safety annotations, and an output schema, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing. Any remaining detail about edge-case responses lives in the output schema.

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 both parameters are required, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description's parameter list restates the schema descriptions verbatim ('Name of the pacticipant', 'Name of the label') and adds no format, casing, or lookup hints, so baseline 3 applies.

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 line gives a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a specific label is applied to a pacticipant.' That is meaningfully distinct from contract-testing_list_labels and contract-testing_add_label_to_pacticipant. However, it never names those siblings or explicitly contrasts itself with contract-testing_list_pacticipants_by_label, which is the closest alternative for label-based queries.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'check whether' — an agent can infer this is the membership-test tool rather than the list tool. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_labels or list_pacticipants_by_label, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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