Get change

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the remaining burden is small. The description still adds real value by disclosing what the response contains and that evidence (captured page, raw diff) is opt-in via include, which implicitly signals payload growth. It does not mention pagination or size limits, so it is not fully transparent.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return shape, followed by one sentence on the optional parameter. No filler or repetition.

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 single-entity fetch with no output schema, the description covers the action, the main response contents, and the optional expansions — enough for an agent to call it correctly. Missing only minor operational detail (what happens with an invalid id, response size behavior when including raw_diff).

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 100%, so both change_id and include (including all three enum values) are fully documented in structured fields. The description only restates that include adds captured page or raw diff as evidence, which marginally clarifies intent but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get one change') and enumerates the returned payload (why_it_matters, field-level diffs, related clusters), which separates it from the list-style sibling list_changes. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 only implied: the verb 'Get one' plus the required id suggest fetching a single known change, and the include parameter hints at opt-in expansion. There is no explicit 'use this instead of list_changes/get_digest' guidance or any precondition stated in the description itself (the id source hint lives in the schema, not the description).

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