Get Issue Dates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds behavioral detail by specifying the exact types of dates returned (created, updated, due date, resolution date) and the optional inclusion of status change history with time tracking. This goes beyond the bare annotation and clarifies the tool's output scope, though it does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or edge cases.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by specific details on return values. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant phrases or fluff. It is well-structured and easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, 1 required), the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the essential what and why. It mentions the return value (dates and optional status history) and a use case ('workflow analysis'). However, it lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools or guidance on when not to use it, which would make it fully self-contained.

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% for all three parameters, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds minimal extra meaning by mentioning 'optionally status change history' and 'time tracking,' which loosely aligns with the include_status_changes and include_status_summary booleans, but it does not provide syntax, defaults, or examples beyond what the schema already offers.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get date information and status transition history for a Jira issue.' It identifies a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Jira issue') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jira_get_issue (full issue details), jira_get_transitions (available transitions), and jira_get_worklog (worklog entries) by focusing on dates and status history.

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 usage for workflow analysis and retrieving date-related fields, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like jira_get_issue or jira_get_transitions. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, so it relies on the user to infer the appropriate use case from the niche it fills.

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