issue_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does signal a non-mutating read and discloses the return shape ('markdown'), which is real value. However, it says nothing about permissions, error behavior for missing issues, or that comments are omitted unless requested, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero filler. It is arguably too terse rather than too verbose, so it does not reach a 5.

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?

There are four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description is one sentence. It fails to explain comment inclusion, site selection, or the response structure, which is inadequate for a fetch tool whose contract is otherwise undocumented.

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 75%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds little beyond it: 'key fields' loosely gestures at the default field set relevant to the 'fields' parameter, but 'site' and 'include_comments' get no explanation anywhere. The undocumented include_comments parameter is the most notable miss.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ('Read a Jira issue') and it states what comes back ('key fields and description as markdown'), so it is clearly distinguishable from issue_search or issue_update. It does not explicitly name a sibling to route against, which keeps it below 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?

Usage is only implied: 'Read a Jira issue' suggests fetching a single known issue, and the required 'key' parameter reinforces that. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over issue_search or issue_comment, and no mention of prerequisites such as site access.

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