jira_get_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get details' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not specify what set of details is returned, whether comments or subtasks are included, or any authentication/error behavior. The lack of an output schema makes this gap more significant.

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 entire description is a single front-loaded sentence that immediately names the operation and the argument. There is no redundant wording or extraneous detail. It earns its place efficiently.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers the essential operation and parameter. However, it omits any indication of what the returned 'details' include or whether it is limited to core fields, which would be useful since no output schema supplies that information. This is a minimal viable description with clear gaps around return values.

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 sole parameter issueKey is already fully documented in the input schema with the same example format ('PROJ-123'), and the tool description merely restates that. With 100% schema description coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get details') and a specific resource ('specific Jira issue') with a clear locator ('by its key, e.g., PROJ-123'). It distinguishes this from siblings like jira_search_issues (query-based search), jira_create_issue (creation), and jira_get_comments (which targets comments, not the issue itself). The purpose is unmistakable.

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 implies the use case: call this tool when you have an issue key and need that issue's details. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over search or other alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusion conditions. This is adequate context but lacks the explicit routing found in top-tier definitions.

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