Get fields for creating an issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the useful content detail that results include required vs optional status and allowed values. It does not discuss result shape or site-resolution behavior, but the schema handles the latter.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the usage trigger immediately after; no filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what the payload contains (field list, required/optional, allowed values) and why to call it. Only the requiredOnly filter and pagination/size expectations are left unaddressed.

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 75% and the required params (projectKey, issueType) are well documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'required and optional' hints at the undocumented requiredOnly flag, but it never states what that parameter does, so it only partially compensates for the gap.

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 and resource ('Lists the fields ... for creating an issue of a given type in a project') and scopes it to create-time fields, which implicitly separates it from the generic jira_get_fields sibling. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation requires a small inference.

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?

Gives two concrete invocation triggers: 'when a create fails because of a missing required field' and 'to find custom field ids.' That is clear context for when to reach for it, but there is no explicit statement of when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer for a general field listing.

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