Get Project Epic Hierarchy

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: parent detection via the parent field or inward issue links, and that parentless epics land under an 'Unlinked' bucket. It stops short of describing pagination or how the fetch limit interacts with grouping.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the mechanism, then the use case. Four short sentences with little waste, though the 'Useful for' line is slightly ornamental.

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, return values needn't be explained, and the description still conveys the grouping structure and the 'Unlinked' catch-all. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description only implies that fetching is bounded ('Fetches all epics') without clarifying max_epics behavior, so it adds little beyond the structured fields — baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Group a project's epics under their cross-project parent issues.' It clearly distinguishes itself from jira_get_project_issues (flat listing) by describing the grouping/roll-up transformation.

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?

It gives clear usage context: 'Useful for understanding how a project's epics roll up to initiatives in another project.' It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended scenario is explicit.

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