getIssueJournal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact beyond annotations — no response compression, i.e. full text returned — but says nothing about auth, pagination, or size limits.

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 sentence with zero waste; the retrieval scope is front-loaded and the ID-source caveat follows immediately, so an agent can parse it in one pass.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and annotations carry the safety profile. The only remaining gap is the undocumented issueId parameter, which is minor for this simple two-parameter read tool.

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%: journalId is documented in the schema and reinforced by the description's provenance note, but issueId has no description anywhere. The description compensates for the journalId side but leaves issueId's semantics (which issue, format) unexplained.

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 and resource ('Retrieve one known issue journal entry in full') plus the distinguishing scope ('without response compression'), which clearly separates it from getIssue and getIssueHistory that return aggregated or compressed content.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent where to get the journalId ('from getIssue or getIssueHistory') and the condition for using this tool ('when exact text is needed'). It doesn't state when not to use it, but the trigger condition is clear enough to route correctly.

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