github_pulls_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. Because no output schema exists, the description's disclosure of what the response contains (mergeability, file/add/delete counts) is genuinely additive rather than redundant. It says nothing about auth scope or rate limits, keeping it below a 5.

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, no filler, and the differentiating return data is front-loaded before the sibling comparison. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming the unique return fields, which is the main thing an agent needs to choose this endpoint. It does not describe error behavior (e.g. 404 for a nonexistent PR number), so it is not fully complete.

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 100%, so owner, repo and pullNumber are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (a single pull request) and goes further by naming the distinguishing payload: mergeability plus changed-file, addition and deletion counts. It also explicitly contrasts with `pulls_list`, so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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 line 'These details are only present on this endpoint, not on `pulls_list`' effectively tells the agent when to prefer this tool over the list variant. It stops short of addressing other near-neighbors such as `github_pulls_get_diff` or `github_pulls_list_files`, and gives no prerequisites, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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