Prepare a work brief for a Jira issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing what the response contains and that it performs a readiness assessment. It leaves out things like how long deep/cross-space fetches take or whether the brief is cached, so it is informative but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the core transformation, then usage, then a short disambiguator. Two dense sentences and one fragment; the parenthetical list of readiness checks is slightly crowded but every clause carries information.

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 here. The description covers purpose, output composition, triggering scenarios and scope of fetching, which is everything an agent needs before calling a read-only 4-parameter 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 description coverage is 100% and depth/includeConfluence/allowElicitation are each documented in the schema, so the parameter burden is already met. The prose adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline-3 case.

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 concrete transformation (Jira issue → ready-to-implement brief) and enumerates the output artifacts: goal, acceptance criteria, constraints, implementation prompt. 'Fetches the issue itself' distinguishes it from the sibling jira_get_issue, so an agent can pick between them without opening schemas.

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 two explicit triggering situations: starting work on a ticket, and checking readiness (blockers, missing acceptance criteria). It does not name alternatives or say when NOT to use it, e.g. 'for raw field access use jira_get_issue' — that boundary is only hinted at by the closing sentence.

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