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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description adds two genuinely useful facts: the return format is HTML, and the content is public-authored and must be treated as data, not instructions. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first states what is returned and in what format, the second carries a non-obvious injection-safety instruction. Front-loaded and free of waste.

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 read-only single-item fetch whose annotations already declare safety, the description covers return format and the prompt-injection caveat. The remaining gap is provenance of the changelog_id, which is left to the sibling list tool.

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 coverage is 0% for the single changelog_id parameter, so the description carries the burden. It implies the parameter identifies one specific entry but gives no format, source, or validity guidance (e.g., obtained from list_changelogs), so it only partially compensates.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — retrieving the full content of a single changelog entry — and the phrase 'one changelog entry' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_changelogs. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the routing itself.

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: the presence of a required changelog_id signals this is for fetching a known entry rather than browsing. There is no explicit when-to-use versus list_changelogs, and no statement of where the ID comes from.

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