get_change_journal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing a real behavioral trait: the response is a 'safe summary' that 'does not return original values', telling the agent the output is redacted. It still doesn't say what the summary contains or whether access is permission-gated.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the important caveat second. No padding or repetition, though the semicolon-joined redaction note could be phrased more crisply.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description could reasonably say what the summary contains (fields, change type, timestamps). For a simple read-only, two-parameter tool the coverage is adequate, but the ambiguity around how to obtain journal_id leaves a practical gap.

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 coverage is only 50%: environment_profile is documented in the schema, but journal_id is bare in both places. The description does not clarify the format or provenance of journal_id (presumably obtained from list_change_journal) and only obliquely touches environment scoping via 'active identity and environment'. It fails to compensate for the 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one journal entry') and scopes it to 'the active identity and environment'. This distinguishes it from list_change_journal (many entries) and rollback_record_journal (mutation), though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.

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 singular 'one journal entry' implies this is the single-entry read counterpart to a listing tool, and the required journal_id makes its usage detectable. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_change_journal or rollback_record_journal, and no prerequisites or source for the ID are given.

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