jira_get_watchers

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond the annotations: the response includes the authenticated user's own watch status, not just the watcher list. It says nothing about permissions, visibility restrictions, or ordering, so it adds modest value only.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and folding the extra output detail into the same clause. Nothing is wasted and nothing essential is buried.

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 not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile; the one required parameter is fully documented in the schema. For a simple read tool this is nearly complete, with only minor gaps around visibility/permission behavior.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% – the schema already documents 'key' with a format example and a regex pattern. The description adds no extra meaning about the key, so the 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 (List) and resource (watchers of an issue) and even adds the output nuance that it reports whether the authenticated user is watching. It does not, however, name the adjacent siblings jira_add_watcher / jira_remove_watcher to make the read-vs-write routing explicit, so it falls short of a 5.

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 verb+resource make the general context (reading watcher state on a known issue key) self-evident, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over jira_get_issue or how it relates to add/remove watcher flows. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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