Jira MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the source (National Weather Service) and types of alerts included, but does not cover important aspects such as rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for a tool that fetches real-time data.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by additional context in the second sentence. Both sentences are efficient and contribute meaning, with no redundant or unnecessary information.

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 low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and scope adequately, though it lacks behavioral details like rate limits or error handling, which are somewhat mitigated by the output schema handling return values.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds value by specifying that the 'state' parameter refers to a U.S. state, but it does not elaborate on format (e.g., abbreviations vs. full names) or constraints, only partially compensating for the lack of schema documentation.

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 specific action ('retrieves'), resource ('active weather alerts, warnings, and advisories'), and scope ('for the specified state'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_forecast and get_weather by focusing on alerts rather than forecasts or general weather data.

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 for retrieving active weather alerts in a U.S. state, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_forecast or get_weather, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites for usage.

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