Verify Jira auth

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, unrestricted read operation. The description adds value by specifying the returned fields (display name, accountId, email), going beyond the 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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded: first sentence explains what the tool returns, second states its usage. No extraneous words.

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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description fully covers the tool's behavior. It explains the return value (listing three fields) and the use case (credential confirmation). Everything needed for agent selection and invocation is present.

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 tool has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). Per guidelines, baseline is 4. No additional parameter information is needed, and the description does not add anything about parameters, which is acceptable.

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 clearly states the tool returns the authenticated Jira user's display name, accountId, and email. The verb 'Return' is specific, and the resource 'authenticated Jira user' is distinct from sibling tools (add_worklog, list_worklogs), which deal with worklogs.

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 explicitly says 'Use to confirm credentials,' providing a clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or explicitly compare to alternatives, though siblings are clearly different in purpose.

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