Get Jira Attachment Download Link

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and openWorld, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: permission requirement, URL temporariness and expiry, that file bytes are not returned, and that Atlassian media redirects are handled. That is a lot of behavior an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Five tight clauses with zero filler, front-loaded on what the tool resolves and what it returns before the caveats. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by describing the returned object fields and the temporary flag, plus permission and expiry caveats. An agent has everything needed to call it and handle the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds provenance meaning by tying the ID to jcm_getIssue attachments, telling the agent where to obtain a valid value. It does not restate the numeric pattern, but that is already in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Resolve an attachment ID') and names the source tool (jcm_getIssue) and the return shape. No sibling tool does attachment-link resolution, so the agent can tell this apart from all 22 siblings instantly.

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?

Gives clear preconditions ('Requires the server's Jira account to have permission to view the attachment') and post-call guidance ('download the temporary URL without Jira credentials using a local download tool; request a fresh URL after expiry'). It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, but the workflow context is clear.

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