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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does it well: it enumerates the returned fields and explains the meaning of statusCategory (Created/InProgress/Completed) and the purpose of canEdit/canDelete and url. It omits error behavior (e.g. non-existent key) and permission requirements, keeping it out of the top band.

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, front-loaded with the core action and key, then the return details. The parenthetical cross-references make it dense but each clause adds a distinct fact, so little is wasted.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, describing the returned payload and its cross-tool references is exactly the missing piece an agent needs. Nothing essential to correct invocation is absent.

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% for the single issueKey parameter, so the schema already documents format and semantics; the description only restates the same 'BRD-42' example. Baseline 3 applies 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 and resource ('Gets one issue's title, full content and attachments') with the lookup key, and 'one issue' clearly distinguishes it from list_issues and get_issue_history in the sibling set.

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?

Points the agent to the right follow-on tools for data it does not return (comments via list_issue_comments, attachments via get_attachment/edit_issue's removeAttachmentIds), which is effective routing. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over list_issues, so it stops short of 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.