jira_fetch_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, and the description lists what is returned, which is helpful. However, it does not mention error behavior, permission requirements, or whether the returned data reflects the latest state. This is adequate but not thorough for a tool without 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?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently lists the operation and all return fields without redundancy. Every part of the sentence adds value, and there is no filler. The structure is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to scan.

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 simple one-parameter fetch tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value by naming all included fields. It does not discuss edge cases like non-existent issues, but that is acceptable given the tool's simplicity. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool with confidence.

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?

The input schema fully documents the single 'id' parameter with a pattern and example ('PROJ-123'). The description only refers to 'by ID' and adds no additional syntax, format, or contextual meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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 starts with the specific verb 'Fetch' and names the resource 'Jira issue by ID'. It also enumerates the exact return fields (key, summary, status, etc.), making the tool's purpose crystal clear and distinct from sibling tools like jira_fetch_comments or jira_search_assignable_users.

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 clearly implies this tool is used when you have a specific Jira issue ID and need its detailed fields. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear among siblings; there is no other fetch-issue tool in the sibling list. A 4 is appropriate for clear context without explicit when-not guidance.

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