getJiraUser

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the lookup-key framing ('by account ID') and says nothing about auth requirements or behavior for unknown IDs, which is minimal added value.

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?

One tight, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Appropriately sized for a simple read tool.

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?

A simple single-param read tool whose safety profile is covered by annotations, so little is required. The missing piece is sibling routing against getJiraCurrentUser and lookupJiraAccountId, which leaves the agent with insufficient disambiguation context.

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 0% and there is a single required parameter, so the description must carry the meaning. It does clarify that the parameter is an account ID (as opposed to email or username), which is useful given lookupJiraAccountId exists, but adds no format or validity guidance.

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 (retrieves) and resource (Jira user's profile) with the lookup key (account ID), so the agent knows exactly what it does. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like getJiraCurrentUser or lookupJiraAccountId, leaving overlap unresolved.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. Given siblings getJiraCurrentUser (self) and lookupJiraAccountId (email-to-ID resolution) exist, the definition leaves the agent to guess which to call.

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