Jira GET Request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels at disclosing behavioral traits. It explains cost implications (unfiltered responses are expensive), provides optimization patterns, describes output format options (TOON vs JSON), and gives detailed usage patterns including schema discovery and JQL examples.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Cost Optimization, Schema Discovery Pattern, Common paths, etc.) and every sentence provides actionable information. While comprehensive, it maintains focus on practical usage without unnecessary fluff, though it's somewhat lengthy due to the tool's complexity.

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 complex tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides exceptional completeness. It covers purpose, usage patterns, cost optimization, parameter semantics, common use cases, examples, and even includes API reference. It fully compensates for the lack of structured metadata.

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?

Despite 100% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value beyond the schema by providing practical examples, cost implications for jq usage, common path patterns, and JQL query examples. It transforms technical parameter definitions into actionable guidance, though some parameter details remain in 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Read any Jira data') and resource ('Jira data'), distinguishing it from siblings like jira_post or jira_delete which perform different operations. The title 'Jira GET Request' reinforces this is specifically for read operations.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, including cost optimization strategies (always use jq, use maxResults), schema discovery patterns, and common paths for different Jira operations. It distinguishes from other HTTP method siblings by being the read-only tool.

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