Contract Testing: Get Pacticipant Version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'Retrieve details', which aligns with annotations. No contradiction.

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 extremely concise with only two short sentences and a bullet list. Every sentence is necessary and there is no redundant information.

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?

The description lacks information about what 'details' are returned (e.g., branch, tags, version metadata). There is no output schema to fill this gap. For a retrieval tool, the description should indicate the structure of the response.

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% with both parameters fully described in the schema. The description repeats the parameter names and types without adding additional meaning such as format constraints or example values.

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 resource 'version of a pacticipant', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as 'contract-testing_get_latest_pacticipant_version' by specifying 'specific version' and from 'contract-testing_list_pacticipant_versions' by being a single-item retrieval.

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 usage when you know the exact version number, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of siblings like 'list_pacticipant_versions' or 'get_latest_pacticipant_version'. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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