bitbucket_get_pull_request

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. "Get" implies a safe read, but nothing is said about permissions/authentication needed, behavior when the id does not exist, or whether related data (diffs, comments) is excluded and must be fetched by sibling tools — meaningful gaps for a tool with zero structured coverage.

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 front-loaded sentence with the returned fields packed into one parenthetical. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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 three-parameter getter the description is close to sufficient, and the parenthetical partly compensates for the missing output schema. However, it omits notable return attributes (state, author, timestamps) and says nothing about failure modes, so an agent still has to discover the response shape empirically.

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 67%: project and repo already have examples in the schema, while id is bare. The description only restates that lookup is by id and adds no format or scoping detail beyond that. The moderate coverage and minimal added meaning land at baseline.

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 one pull request by id" states a specific verb, resource, and cardinality, which separates it from bitbucket_list_pull_requests without naming it. The parenthetical enumerates what comes back (title, description, branches, reviewers, draft flag), reinforcing the resource identity.

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: fetch a single PR when its id is known. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over bitbucket_list_pull_requests (unknown id, browsing) or over sibling readers such as bitbucket_get_merge_status and bitbucket_get_activities, and no prerequisites are mentioned.

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