Get Issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the behavioral detail that the tool includes Epic links and relationship information. It also notes that enrichments can be inlined via the 'include' parameter, which is useful. The schema's 'update_history' parameter implies a side effect, but the description does not contradict the annotation, so no red flag is raised.

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 description is two concise sentences that front-load the core action and then provide one additional useful tip about the 'include' parameter. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are covered. The description mentions the critical aspects (specific issue retrieval, Epic links, inline enrichments) while the rich schema descriptions handle parameter details. For a read-only lookup tool, this is a complete and well-rounded description.

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%, with each of the 8 parameters thoroughly described in the schema. The tool description adds value by explaining the purpose of the 'include' parameter in avoiding separate calls, but it does not add semantic meaning to other parameters. The schema carries the heavy lifting, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Get details of a specific Jira issue' with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself from broader tools like 'jira_search' or 'jira_get_project_issues' by mentioning 'Epic links and relationship information' and the ability to inline enrichments. This is a precise, non-tautological purpose.

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 explicitly explains that the 'include' parameter can inline remote_links, transitions, watchers, changelog, comments, and worklogs 'so that separate tool calls are not needed.' This provides clear context on when to use this tool as a consolidated fetch versus making separate calls to sibling tools like jira_get_worklog or jira_get_issue_watchers, though it does not name these alternatives explicitly.

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