Get Jira Issue

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open world), yet the description adds substantive behavior the annotations cannot: the exact lean field set returned, the updatedJql minute-flooring and at-least-once/dedupe semantics for polling, and the requirement of Jira auth for attachment content URLs. These are precisely the non-obvious traits that prevent misuse in a polling loop.

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 action is front-loaded in the first clause, then the return shape is enumerated. The second half is a long run-on enumeration, but since no output schema exists each listed field earns its place; it could be tightened with a compact list rather than parenthetical nesting.

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 takes on the return-contract burden and discharges it fully, including nullability (assignee/reporter, updatedJql), date formats, and the auth caveat on attachment URLs. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly or interpret the response is missing.

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% and the single issueKey parameter already carries its own description and regex pattern, so the schema does the work here. The description only restates "by key" and adds no format, casing, or failure-mode detail beyond the schema's pattern.

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?

"Fetch a Jira issue by key" gives a specific verb and resource with a clear scope qualifier (single issue, addressed by key), which implicitly separates it from jcm_searchIssues and jcm_getIssueChangelog. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so the agent must infer the boundary rather than being told it.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase "by key" suggests this is for when you already know the issue identifier and search is for when you don't. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer jcm_searchIssues, no prerequisite for obtaining a key, and no note on whether this tool errors on missing keys.

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