Contract Testing: Get Pacticipant Version

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description's 'Retrieve details' aligns with a safe read. It adds a small scoping point by targeting a specific version rather than latest/all, but does not describe response contents, version format, or any auth/rate considerations.

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 front-loads the purpose, but the 'Parameters' bullets largely duplicate the input schema, so not every line adds net-new information. Still, the layout is easy to scan.

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 tool with complete schema documentation and safety annotations, the description is sufficient for invocation. It could be more complete by noting when to prefer latest/list siblings, but nothing essential for this call is missing.

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 coverage is 100%: both parameters are documented identically in the schema and description. The description adds no extra semantic meaning such as format constraints or how versionNumber is matched.

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?

Opens with 'Retrieve details for a specific version of a pacticipant', which names a concrete verb and resource and clearly distinguishes this from sibling list/latest tools like contract-testing_list_pacticipant_versions and contract-testing_get_latest_pacticipant_version. The two required parameters make the exact target unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance or exclusions are given. It doesn't say 'for the latest version, use get_latest_pacticipant_version' or contrast with listing versions, so an agent must infer selection from the name and purpose alone.

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