get_change_review

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no statement of what is returned, whether a missing submission_id errors versus returns empty, or what the nested basis/intent objects represent.

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 text is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness: a single lowercased fragment that conveys no information an agent could act on. There is no front-loaded verb+resource statement with supporting detail.

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 tool has nested object parameters at 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and an unexplained idempotency key, so the description carries the full explanatory burden — and it delivers none of it. An agent cannot call this correctly without guessing at the shapes of basis and intent.

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 0% and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. The nested arguments object with submission_id, basis, and intent, plus a top-level idempotency_key, are all entirely opaque — notably an idempotency_key on a read operation, which the description never explains.

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?

"get change review" restates the tool name verbatim with no added specificity. It nominally implies retrieving a single change review, but it never says what a change review contains, what entity it is keyed to, or how it differs from the sibling list_change_reviews or review_context.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative (list_change_reviews for enumerating reviews). The agent is left to infer selection criteria entirely from the tool name.

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