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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe read operation, and the description adds important behavior: the token itself is never returned, 'secretSet' indicates token presence, 'connected' false means none, and 'canConfigure' indicates permission to change the connection. It does not discuss error cases or rate limits, but the security-sensitive and permission-relevant behavior is well disclosed.

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 content is dense but front-loaded around the returned connection fields, and every clause carries useful information about return values, routing, or permissions. The first sentence is quite long and could be easier to scan, but there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully carries the burden of explaining the return shape: site, account, token flags, enabled state, Confluence sub-fields, 'connected', 'canConfigure', and the configuration URL. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what this read returns and what it cannot do.

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?

The sole parameter 'projectKey' has 100% schema description coverage with an example, so the schema carries the parameter documentation. The description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 conveys that this tool reports a project's Jira connection state, including the site, account, token presence, enablement, and Confluence linkage. It distinguishes itself from set_jira_connection for switching on/off, though the opening is phrased as a noun clause rather than a direct verb+resource statement.

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?

It explicitly routes mutation to set_jira_connection and connection/token setup to the board's Jira sheet at 'url', preventing misuse of this read-only tool for writes or secret entry. It also notes that any project member may ask, but does not state a direct trigger condition such as 'use before attempting a Jira write'.

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