My tickets

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: implicit sort order ('newest activity first') and the default scope ('open issues only'). What it omits is volume behavior — whether maxResults caps silently and whether there is pagination — which matters for a 100-row-limit search.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with ownership and ordering, then defaults, then filters. No filler and nothing buried.

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 6-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers the core promise but leaves two substantive gaps: reportedByMe silently changes what 'my tickets' means, and there is no routing guidance against the very similar jira_search_issues. An agent could infer these from the schema, but not from the prose.

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?

Coverage is 67%, so the schema already documents site, status, and updatedWithin in detail. The description loosely maps to status categories, project, and recent updates but adds no format guidance, and it never mentions reportedByMe — which inverts the whole premise from 'assigned to' to 'reported by' — nor maxResults.

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 concrete resource and scope: issues assigned to the connected user, ordered by newest activity. An agent knows exactly what it returns. However, it never names jira_search_issues, the general sibling that overlaps heavily, so the boundary between 'my tickets' and a general search must be inferred.

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?

'Defaults to open issues only. Filter by project, status category, or recent updates' implies the natural use case (personal triage queue), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus jira_search_issues or jira_count_issues, and no statement of when this shortcut is insufficient.

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