Get Queue Issues

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 a genuinely new behavioral constraint by restricting the tool to Server/Data Center and excluding Jira Cloud. It does not discuss pagination behavior or result ordering, which keeps it from a 5.

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, platform constraint second — every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of the title.

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 a full schema, an output schema, and rich annotations, the definition covers what the tool is and where it runs. The remaining gap is the prerequisite chain for obtaining service_desk_id/queue_id, which an agent would have to infer from sibling tools.

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%, with all four parameters documented including example IDs and pagination semantics, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is already structured, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 issues from a Jira Service Desk queue', which clearly separates it from jira_get_service_desk_queues (lists queues) and jira_get_project_issues / jira_search. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the required service_desk_id and queue_id, suggesting an agent must first resolve a service desk and queue (likely via jira_get_service_desk_queues), but the description never states this prerequisite or any when-not condition. The 'Server/Data Center only' line is a useful applicability constraint but not usage routing.

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