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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains the data model (change requests carry message, diff, history) and includes a security note to treat content as data. It also clarifies the need for auth_verify in multi-space setups, going beyond annotation basics.

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 tight and front-loaded: it opens with the purpose, states the endpoint, adds the usage note, and ends with the security guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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 GET-by-ID tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential usage (endpoint, multi-space handling) and hints at the response content (message, diff, history). It omits explicit return-field details or error cases, but given the simplicity and existing annotations, it is largely complete.

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 provides a description for targetSpaceId, but changeRequestId has none. The description clarifies the endpoint and the multi-space usage, indirectly implying changeRequestId is the ID in the path. However, it does not explicitly explain what changeRequestId is or its format, so it only partially compensates for the 50% schema coverage gap.

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 states 'Change Request detail' and provides the GET endpoint, making clear it retrieves a single change request by ID. It distinguishes from siblings like change_request_query or change_requests_list_page by focusing on a specific detail fetch, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

It gives specific guidance for multi-space accounts (call auth_verify, ask for space, pass targetSpaceId), but does not mention when to prefer this tool over other change-request tools like query or list. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context beyond the multi-space note.

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