Contract Testing: Get Pacticipant Network

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 known. The description adds little behavioral context beyond the word 'Retrieve' and does not explain pagination behavior or the structure of the returned graph, but the annotations cover the key behavioral traits.

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 a single clear sentence, but the parameter list is fully redundant with the schema, and the 'Toolset' line adds limited value. The overall size is acceptable, but not every section earns its place given the duplicate parameter documentation.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what the 'integration network graph' contains, but it only names the resource without describing its structure. Invocation requirements are clear, with one required parameter and optional pagination, but the return value is underspecified, leaving a moderate gap in completeness.

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 schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions and defaults. The description repeats the parameter information verbatim, adding no additional meaning about formats, constraints, or relationships. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Retrieve' and identifies the resource as 'integration network graph for a specific pacticipant', which clearly conveys what the tool does. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate itself, but the unique 'network graph' scope distinguishes it from related tools like list_pacticipants and list_integrations.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The 'Toolset: Integrations and Network' label is a category tag rather than actionable usage direction, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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