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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is free. The description adds a real behavioral fact beyond annotations — the changeControl ENTERPRISE+ entitlement gate — but says nothing about retention, pagination behavior, or the shape of the history records.

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, purpose first, entitlement constraint second. Zero waste and correctly front-loaded.

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, non-destructive tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is needed to invoke it correctly, including the tier gate. Minor omission: no hint about pagination follow-through even though cursor is offered.

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 description coverage is 100% (limit range/default, cursor semantics, changeRequestId), so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline.

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 (get), resource (change request), and scope (field-level change history for ONE change request). This cleanly separates it from get_change_request (current state) and the other *_history siblings like get_task_history or get_document_history.

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 implied by the name and purpose (fetch revision history), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives such as get_change_request for current values. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the boundary.

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