Get Issue Dates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds that status history is optional and that durations/time-per-status tracking are available, which is useful context, but says nothing about cost of fetching history, permissions, or result volume for large changelogs.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the specific return contents. There is no filler, though the second sentence is somewhat list-like and could be tightened.

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 and annotations covering safety, the description carries the remaining burden of explaining what date fields and history are returned, which it does. The main gap is sibling differentiation against jira_get_issue and the batch changelog tool.

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 100%, so the schema already explains issue_key, include_status_changes and include_status_summary in detail. The description only restates the optionality of status history and 'time tracking', adding little beyond the schema; 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?

The description names a specific resource (a Jira issue) and precisely enumerates the data returned (created, updated, due date, resolution date, plus optional status transition history). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from overlapping siblings such as jira_get_issue or jira_batch_get_changelogs, which also surface issue metadata and changelog 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 phrase 'for workflow analysis' implies a use case for the status-history option, giving some usage signal. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over jira_get_issue (full issue details) or jira_batch_get_changelogs, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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