Contract Testing: Get Released Versions for Version

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 covered. The description adds the environment-scoped resource context but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as response format, error conditions, or pagination behavior beyond the schema defaults. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded, but the Toolset label and the full parameter list duplicate information already present in the input schema. This redundancy prevents the description from being maximally efficient, though it remains reasonably sized.

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 simple filtered-list read operation, the combination of annotations, schema, and description covers the required parameters, defaults, and safety profile. The description could clarify what a 'release record' represents versus a deployment record, but this is not essential for invoking the tool correctly.

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 all parameters are already documented. The description's parameter list repeats the schema's names, types, required flags, and defaults without adding extra meaning or usage nuance beyond what the input schema provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve'), resource ('release records'), and scope ('for a specific pacticipant version in a specific environment'). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_deployed_versions_for_version, making the tool's function distinct without needing to open schemas.

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 clear context: use this when you need release records for a specific pacticipant version in a specific environment. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the scoping is explicit enough for basic selection.

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