Check local changes against a Jira issue

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: checks run independently, the issue is fetched automatically, and the possible verdict values (ready_for_pr, needs_work, insufficient_evidence, not_applicable) plus per-criterion coverage are disclosed. That is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs.

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 purpose and the pre-PR warning are front-loaded, and the verdict-value preview is placed at the end where it belongs. Density is high but nearly every clause carries new information; the wording is slightly compressed with semicolons and dashes.

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, yet the verdict summary still helps set expectations. Combined with the check semantics, the PR/planning timing guidance, and the auto-fetch note, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining what the alignment, dod, and impact checks semantically do and when to select the impact-only subset. It doesn't clarify baseBranch/compareRef/maxDiffChars, which the schema already handles.

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 (check local diff work against a Jira issue) and immediately names the three sub-checks (alignment, dod, impact) plus what each evaluates. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like delivery_traceability_matrix or jira_get_issue without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit timing guidance: run alignment/dod before opening a PR, and use checks ["impact"] when planning before code is written. Strong conditional routing, though it names no sibling alternative or when-not-to-use case for the tool as a whole.

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