List fields

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely valuable behavior beyond the annotations: the result is always complete because GET /field is unpaginated, the query filter is applied server-side, and duplicateNames behavior is disclosed. This goes beyond what structured fields convey.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, query behavior, duplicate-name handling, and completeness guarantee. The most important information is front-loaded in the opening sentence, and nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by describing what the response contains (id, name, schema type, custom flag) and its completeness, which is exactly what an agent needs to resolve names to IDs. The two parameters are fully covered by the schema and the safety profile by annotations. Minor gaps remain, such as the exact response envelope, but practical call- and use-correctness is covered.

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%: both query and profile are fully documented in the input schema, including examples. The description's '`query` filters by name or id' largely restates the schema's 'Case-insensitive substring filter over field NAME and field ID,' and duplicateNames is output behavior rather than a parameter. The schema does the heavy lifting, so the 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 states a specific verb-resource pair ('discovery tool for field ids') and enumerates the exact contents: id, name, schema type, and the custom flag. The concrete example, 'Story Points' resolves to customfield_10016, removes all ambiguity, and the positioning as 'THE' discovery tool clearly separates it from list-oriented siblings like jira_list_projects.

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 makes the intended use explicit: resolve a display name to a field id. It provides a concrete decision rule for ambiguity — when a name appears in duplicateNames, ask which field is meant instead of picking one. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the discovery-tool framing supplies adequate context.

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