Get a changelog entry

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response includes Markdown content and status, which is useful, but it does not disclose error behavior, status values, or other runtime traits beyond what annotations and the schema imply.

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?

One sentence contains the essential information: the operation, target, and what is included. There is no filler or repetition of schema details, and the most important qualifier ('single ... by id') leads the description.

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 read-only lookup with two fully documented parameters and readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description gives enough context to invoke correctly and know what kind of content to expect. The only minor gap is the absence of any statement about not-found behavior or the exact response shape, but this is not critical given the simple get-by-id pattern.

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%: both project_id and entry_id have descriptions in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond 'by id', which is already captured by the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') with a clearly defined resource ('a single changelog entry by id') and states key returned fields (Markdown content and status). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_entries, create_entry, update_entry, and publish_entry without needing to open the 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 phrase 'by id' and 'single' communicate that this is the correct tool when the agent already has an entry_id and needs the full entry content/status. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, but the usage context is strongly implied.

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