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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a non-mutating read, so the description does not need to argue safety. It does add one piece of real behavioral information: the response contains transition IDs that feed into another call, which is valuable given there is no output schema. It stops short of describing the shape of each transition (name, target status, required fields), which would matter for deciding which transition to pick.

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, zero filler, with the purpose stated first and the follow-up action second. Nothing is redundant with the title or annotations.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers what the tool does, what it returns conceptually (transition IDs), and how to use the result. Adding a sentence on the returned fields (transition name, target status, whether a fields payload is required) would make it fully self-sufficient.

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% — both issue_key and account are documented in-schema with examples (PROJ-123, user@gmail.com). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond confirming the call is scoped to one issue, so the schema carries the load and 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?

"Get the available workflow transitions for a Jira issue" states a specific verb (get), resource (workflow transitions), and scope (per-issue), which distinguishes it cleanly from all siblings. An agent can tell this is the discovery/read step versus jira_transition_issue, the mutation step.

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 second sentence explicitly routes the agent forward: use the returned transition IDs with jira_transition_issue. That is a clear next-step pointer to the sibling tool. It lacks any negative guidance (e.g., that this is not needed if you already know the transition ID, or preconditions such as required workflow permissions), so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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