jira_get_issue

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

Adds valuable behavioral details: return formats (markdown or JSON) and error handling ('human-readable error string'). This goes beyond the annotations which already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive.

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?

Description is concise with 4 sentences covering purpose, args, and returns. The Args section is slightly technical but not overly verbose. Efficiently structured.

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 simple read-only tool, the description covers the return format and error cases. With rich annotations and an output schema, it is fairly complete. Lacks mention of pagination or limits, which are not relevant for a single-issue fetch.

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 input schema already provides good descriptions for both parameters (issue_key and response_format). The description does not add significant extra meaning beyond what's in the schema, so baseline score of 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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Fetch', the resource 'Jira issue by key', and the result 'core fields and description'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_search_issues which return multiple issues.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., jira_get_issue_comments, jira_search_issues). The description only states what it does, not the context for its usage.

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