Contract Testing: List Pacticipant Versions

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 no behavioral details beyond restating the purpose and parameter list—no mention of result ordering, pagination limits, response shape, or other operational behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded, leading with the purpose and then organizing parameters under a toolset label. The parameter block mostly repeats schema content, so some lines are redundant, but the overall size is still appropriate and scannable.

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 read-only, paginated list operation with one required parameter, the description plus schema and annotations provides enough information for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. The absence of an output schema and lack of return-value detail are not critical for this straightforward retrieval task.

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 schema already documents all three parameters with defaults. The description's parameter section largely duplicates the schema and adds no richer meaning about formats, constraints, or how pagination interacts with 'all versions.'

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve all versions for a given pacticipant.' This clearly states the tool's function and the word 'all' distinguishes it from single-version siblings like get_pacticipant_version and get_latest_pacticipant_version, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 context is only implied: 'Retrieve all versions for a given pacticipant' suggests it is for listing all historical versions rather than fetching a specific or latest version. The 'Toolset: Branches and Versions' label adds categorization but no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions versus closely related tools.

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