Get changelog

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

Annotations already signal read-only/idempotent, and the description adds non-obvious runtime behavior: results are returned OLDEST FIRST, one page per call, `data.nextStartAt` resumes, and the total is needed for tail reads. This is substantive behavioral disclosure beyond the structured hints; no contradiction.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying a distinct load: resource definition, ordering/tail strategy, alternative one-call route, and paging contract. No filler or repeated schema text.

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 paginated read with no output schema, the description tells the agent what data to expect (field, old/new value, author, created), how many rows per call, how to resume, and how to fetch the recent slice most efficiently. Nothing essential to invoking it correctly is omitted.

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 covers 100% of parameters (baseline 3), and the description adds the pagination algorithm that ties startAt/maxResults to `data.total` and `data.nextStartAt`, which the schema alone doesn't express. It reinforces but also extends the schema's parameter documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Read') and exact resource ('an issue's change history'), listing the returned fields (field, from → to, author, created). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling issue-read tools like jira_get_issue or jira_get_comments.

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 contrasts the recent-slice use case with `expand: ["changelog"]` on jira_get_issue and says that one call replaces two, and it prescribes a concrete pagination strategy (total then startAt = total - maxResults). This leaves no ambiguity about when to call or how to page.

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