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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds value by detailing the returned content (e.g., comments, attachments), which is behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 a single informative sentence with no fluff. It could slightly benefit from structuring the returned fields as a list, but it remains efficient and front-loaded with the key action.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, multiple return fields) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what information it returns. It is complete enough for an agent to understand without needing to inspect the output schema.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds examples and clarifies that the 'fields' parameter is optional and comma-separated, providing semantic guidance beyond the schema's bare descriptions.

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 action 'Get full details for a Jira issue by key' and lists the returned fields (description, status, assignee, priority, comments, attachments, linked issues). It distinguishes itself from siblings like jira_search and jira_get_project by focusing on a single known issue.

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 implies usage when you have an issue key and want full details. It does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context of sibling tools and the 'by key' phrasing gives sufficient guidance for an agent to select this tool over others.

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