Contract Testing: List Deployed or Released Versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description's only added behavioral signal is the historical scope of the result set ('ever been deployed or released'); it says nothing about ordering, whether un-deployed versions are excluded, or pagination totals.

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?

One useful sentence is followed by a 'Toolset' label and a full parameter list that merely duplicates the input schema, including defaults. This padding dilutes the single informative statement rather than front-loading it with additional value.

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 a full output schema and complete annotations, the definition covers the mechanics of calling the tool. What it omits is the disambiguation an agent needs when several version-listing siblings exist, which is the main remaining gap for this complexity level.

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% and all three parameters (including defaults for pageNumber=1 and pageSize=5) are already documented in the input schema. The description's parameter block is a verbatim restatement and adds no new meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve all versions of a pacticipant that have ever been deployed or released') and the word 'ever' hints at historical scope. However, it never names or distinguishes itself from close siblings such as get_currently_deployed_versions, get_deployed_versions_for_version, get_released_versions_for_version, or list_pacticipant_versions, so an agent still has to infer the boundaries.

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?

Usage is only implied through the phrase 'have ever been deployed or released', which suggests a historical/audit view rather than the 'currently deployed' view of a sibling. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool routing despite a dense cluster of near-duplicate version-listing tools.

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