Get Issue Dates

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by describing a read operation. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the returned data (dates and optional status history), which annotations do not cover. 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: a clear purpose line, followed by what returns, then an Args section, and a Returns line. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers input parameters and return value format (JSON string with issue dates and status tracking data). It is complete for a read tool with moderate complexity.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description's Args section restates parameters without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the semantic load.

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 date information and status transition history for a Jira issue', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_get_issue or jira_get_issue_sla by focusing on dates and status history.

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 dates and status history, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like jira_get_issue. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided, limiting guidance on tool selection.

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