Get issue

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial behavioral value: result-budget burn when fields are omitted, rich-text flattening vs raw ADF vs markdown, expand pass-through semantics, changelog behavior, and the accountId/displayName identity rule. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four tightly packed sentences, each earning its place. The purpose is front-loaded, followed directly by the highest-impact behavioral warnings. There is no filler.

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?

For a read tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation, field selection, output rendering modes, expand behavior, and user identity, which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. Minor omissions like `properties` and explicit error/not-found behavior are low-risk and partially covered by the schema.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful extra context: the cost of omitting fields, the practical difference between raw and markdown rendering, and the identity format of user fields. Some details repeat the schema, but the added trade-off guidance improves parameter selection.

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 opens with 'Read one Jira issue by key or id,' giving a specific verb, resource, and addressing mechanism. This clearly separates it from search, create, update, and comment/attachment tools.

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 provides clear context for when to call it: reading one known issue by key or id, with meaningful guidance about field selection and rendering modes. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives like jira_search or jira_get_comments, though the 'only tool that can' ADF note implies one differentiator.

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