Contract Testing: Get Pacts for Verification

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 description does not need to cover safety. It adds little behavioral detail beyond the selection criteria; it does not mention pagination, response shape, rate limits, or auth requirements. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and clear, but the description includes a 'Toolset' line and a full parameter list that duplicate schema information, so not every element earns its place. It is reasonably sized but not as tight as it could be.

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 schema and annotations handle parameter meaning and safety well, but the tool has a fairly complex nested selector structure and no output schema. The description does not explain the verification workflow context, how consumerVersionSelectors interact with WIP/pending flags, or what the returned data looks like. It is minimally viable with clear gaps.

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 applies. The parameter list in the description is a near-verbatim duplicate of the schema and adds no semantic nuance or examples beyond the structured definitions.

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 clearly identifies the operation ('Retrieve the pacts...') and the resource scope ('that a provider should verify'), with extra specificity about selectors and WIP/pending configuration. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from related contract-testing tools, so it cannot be a 5.

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 phrase 'pacts that a provider should verify' implies this belongs in a provider-verification workflow, and the selector/configuration language hints at the intended use case. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as matrix, can_i_deploy, or publish_consumer_contracts, and no exclusions are stated.

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