Contract Testing: List Pacticipants by Label

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description's 'retrieve' aligns with these, but adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, auth requirements, or response format. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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: one sentence for purpose, one for toolset, and a parameter block. Every element is essential and front-loaded. No unnecessary words.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core function and parameter. It could optionally mention the return type (list of pacticipants), but the lack is not critical. Adequate for the 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?

The schema already describes the parameter labelName as 'Label name to filter by' with 100% coverage. The description repeats this concept ('have a specific label applied') without adding new semantic details. Baseline 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 description clearly states the verb 'retrieve' and the resource 'pacticipants' with a specific filter by label. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pacticipants (unfiltered) and get_pacticipant_label (likely a single label).

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 the tool is for filtering by label, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like list_pacticipants or other label-related tools. The inclusion of 'Toolset: Labels' provides weak context but lacks explicit usage boundaries.

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