Get Issue

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, which matches the read-only nature of the tool. The description adds context about included Epic links, return format (JSON), and raises ValueError, with 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 concise and well-structured with Args, Returns, Raises sections. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and uses minimal but informative text.

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 7 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, key parameters, error handling, and return type. No gaps.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the `include` parameter's purpose to batch enrichments and reduce tool calls, which goes beyond 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 'Get details of a specific Jira issue' and mentions included information (Epic links, relationships). It distinguishes itself from siblings like jira_search and sub-getters.

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 explains that the `include` parameter can inline enrichments to avoid separate tool calls, implying efficient usage. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like jira_get_issue_dates or jira_get_issue_images.

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