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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only nature, and the description adds value by detailing the returned content (reviewers, decisions, comment thread) and the effect of includeAuditTrail. It does not contradict the annotation, and while it doesn't describe side effects, none are expected.

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 concise, with each sentence serving a distinct purpose: defining the resource, providing a cross-reference, explaining a parameter, and giving usage guidance. It is well-structured and no unnecessary words are used.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality, parameters, and relationship to other tools. It also notes the requirement of project context. Minor gaps like error conditions are not addressed, but for this level of complexity the completeness is strong.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions. The description adds a useful cross-reference that the userId values under reviewers are what manage_merge_request('create') expects, and clarifies the purpose of includeAuditTrail. It enriches but does not replace the schema.

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 it retrieves a single merge request with its reviewers, decisions, and comment thread. The verb 'Get' and resource are explicit. It also distinguishes from related tools like list_merge_requests and get_branch.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this when you already have the merge request id'. It also points to alternatives: 'to browse them use list_merge_requests' and 'for what the merge would actually change, use get_branch'. This gives clear routing guidance.

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