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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safe read-only nature, and the description reinforces this with 'Get'. It adds useful behavioral context about included data (reviewers, decisions, comment thread) and the audit trail option, though it does not discuss edge cases or errors.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each subsequent sentence adds useful guidance about reviewer IDs, audit trail usage, diff alternatives, and project context, with no redundant wording.

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?

The description gives enough output context for a single merge request getter, listing reviewers, decisions, comment thread, and audit trail. It also notes the project context requirement and points to an alternative tool for diffs, though it leaves the exact response shape unspecified.

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 input schema already provides clear descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some extra meaning for includeAuditTrail and the reviewer userId relationship, but it does not substantially clarify specId or mergeRequestId beyond 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 the tool's primary action with a specific verb and resource: 'Get one merge request with its reviewers, their decisions and the comment thread.' It also distinguishes itself from related tools by directing diff-related needs to get_branch(includeDiff).

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance, such as setting includeAuditTrail for the who-did-what history and using get_branch(includeDiff) for actual merge changes. It also explains how the returned reviewer userId values relate to manage_merge_request('create').

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