Contract Testing: Get Pacticipant Network

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld=false, so safety is fully covered. Beyond that, the description adds nothing: it does not say what the network graph contains (nodes, versions, integrations), how pagination behaves past the last page, or any auth/scope requirements. Only the 'Toolset' line adds minor context.

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 lead sentence is well front-loaded and earns its place. The 'Toolset' line is marginal, and the parameter block duplicates the schema word for word, adding length without information. Roughly half the text is redundant for an agent that already sees the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and all three parameters are documented in the schema. The definition is therefore minimally sufficient to invoke the tool, but it does not explain what a 'network graph' conceptually contains, which matters for interpreting the response of a read-only graph endpoint.

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 baseline is 3. The parameter list in the description is a verbatim restatement of the schema descriptions, including the defaults already declared as JSON schema 'default' values. No additional meaning, such as accepted name formats or paging limits, is supplied.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve the integration network graph for a specific pacticipant.' That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from contract-testing_get_pacticipant (entity details) and contract-testing_get_metrics. It falls short of a 5 only because it never names a sibling or explains how the network graph differs from, say, get_integrations_by_team.

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 states what the tool returns but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent deciding between this and get_integrations_by_team or matrix gets no routing help. Usage is inferable from the purpose alone, which is why it is not a 1.

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