jira_get_issue

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: the default is a full-field payload including custom fields, and expand can retrieve additional sections in one round trip. It says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or error behavior for a missing key.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core action and default payload front-loaded and the expand hint following. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 values need no explanation, and readOnlyHint covers safety. The description supplies the one thing the schema can't: that the default response is all fields including custom fields, and how to widen it via expand. Complete for a simple read-by-key tool.

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 all three parameters are already documented with examples. The description's mention of expand adds the nuance of co-fetching sections in the same call, but duplicates the schema's own example values (changelog, renderedFields) rather than adding new semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get an issue') and immediately characterizes the default payload ('all fields by default, custom fields included'), which separates it from list/search siblings like jira_search_issues. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 tells the agent how to use the expand parameter to fetch extra sections 'in the same call,' which is genuine usage guidance, but it offers no when-to-use/when-not framing relative to jira_search_issues or jira_get_transitions. Usage context is implied only.

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