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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the baseline burden is low. The description adds real value by disclosing that the response includes explicit Feedback/Evidence fix claims and stale-evidence indicators, plus a semantic rule about links not closing Feedback, but says nothing about permissions, missing-ID behavior, or pagination.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core read operation, and no filler. The second sentence is terse to the point of being cryptic, but it carries a genuine domain rule rather than padding.

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 an output schema present, return shape need not be described, and the single required parameter is simple. The description covers the operation, the returned claims, and a key domain caveat; what remains missing is the relationship to change_search for agents choosing between lookup paths.

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?

There is a single required parameter, changeId, whose type and UUID pattern are fully specified in the schema, so the meaning is largely self-evident from the name. The description adds no information about the identifier (e.g., where to obtain it or that it is the canonical Change ID) despite 0% schema description coverage.

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?

"Read a Change and its explicit Feedback/Evidence fix claims, including stale evidence indicators" gives a specific verb and resource and even names the returned sub-resources, which separates it from change_search. It stops short of explicitly naming the search sibling as the alternative, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 line "A link alone does not close Feedback" implies a domain rule for when a change lookup matters (verifying fix claims rather than just links), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to change_search for lookup-by-criteria.

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