Get a change

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the HTTP GET method and 'Body fields: none' but does not disclose potential behaviors like authentication requirements, error cases, or response characteristics. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 description is extremely concise and front-loaded: the core action comes first, then the exact endpoint, then the body constraint, then a reference link. Every sentence earns its place and there is 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 simple single-resource GET with strong annotations, the description provides the essential invocation information: the endpoint and required changeID. However, it does not describe what a 'change' is, what response to expect, how errors are surfaced, or how this tool relates to the sibling listing tool xmatters_get_changes. The reference link partially compensates, and the complexity is low, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The endpoint path /changes/{changeID} makes the meaning and location of the required changeID parameter clear, even though the schema's path object lacks a description. The query object is already described in the schema, including pagination behavior. The description's only additional parameter-related note is 'Body fields: none,' which is useful but minimal.

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?

The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Get a change' and identifies the exact endpoint GET /api/xm/1/changes/{changeID}. It is obviously a single-resource retrieval operation, but it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling xmatters_get_changes or otherwise name alternatives, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related tools in the sibling list, such as xmatters_get_changes or xmatters_create_a_change_record. The endpoint implies it should be used when you have a specific changeID, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given.

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