jira_get_issue_related_pull_requests

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add value by stating the return is 'JSON string containing Jira's development status response' and by disclosing the default exclusion of DECLINED PRs, but it omits permissions/auth requirements, pagination, error behavior, and whether the underlying issue must be visible to the caller.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact Args/Returns block; nothing is padded. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and both params are covered. What is missing is the surrounding decision context — when this is preferable to direct Bitbucket PR listing tools — which for a two-param lookup tool in a crowded namespace leaves a usable but incomplete picture.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the 'PROJ-123' example and the ['DECLINED'] default. The description's Args section merely restates those defaults and adds no syntax or filtering semantics beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.

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+resource: 'Get Bitbucket pull requests related to a Jira issue.' An agent can tell this apart from generic PR listers because the linkage is through a Jira issue key. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with siblings like bitbucket_list_pull_requests or bitbucket_get_pull_request, which serve adjacent needs.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The reader must infer from the name alone that this is the tool for tracing Jira-to-Bitbucket PR linkage rather than listing a repository's PRs. With ~70 sibling tools, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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