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, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear and the description does not contradict it. The description adds the semantic behavior of checking an association, but provides no additional detail about return format, error cases, or authentication needs.

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 description is one front-loaded sentence that immediately states the purpose. The parameter list is redundant with the schema but short and harmless, so it does not meaningfully impair usability.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup, the description is largely sufficient: the annotations cover mutation safety and the wording 'Check whether' implies a boolean-style outcome. Still, because there is no output schema, an explicit statement of the returned value or error semantics would be more complete.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description merely repeats the parameter names and descriptions without adding constraints, formats, defaults, or relationships beyond what the schema 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 ('Check whether') and clearly names the resource and relationship: a specific label applied to a pacticipant. It is clear enough to separate this from listing all labels, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate sibling tools.

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 when to use it: when an agent needs to check whether a specific label exists on a specific pacticipant. However, it gives no explicit guidance about alternatives such as list_labels or list_pacticipants_by_label, and no exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions.

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