Get Create Fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds value by describing what comes back (names, IDs, required flags, schema). It doesn't mention that create metadata can differ by project/issue type configuration or any permission considerations, but for a read-only lookup the disclosure is solid.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose first, follow-on routing second, with no filler. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 an output schema present, two fully documented required parameters and complete annotations, the description only needs to frame purpose and next step, which it does. The remaining gap is modest: it doesn't distinguish this from other field-listing tools such as jira_get_project_fields, which an agent juggling ~70 siblings might reasonably conflate.

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%: both parameters carry descriptions with a format example and a pointer to get_project_issue_types. The description adds only a light restatement ('the given project and issue type') and no extra semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (get fields for creating an issue of a specific type) and scopes it to a project + issue type, which separates it from general field-discovery siblings like jira_get_project_fields or jira_search_fields. It also names the related tool for the follow-on step, so an agent can place it in a workflow without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit hand-off rule: use jira_get_field_options when a returned field needs its allowed values. That is a clear usage context plus an alternative, but it offers no exclusions (e.g., when to prefer jira_get_project_fields) and no stated prerequisite for obtaining issue_type_id beyond what the schema says.

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