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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses the 50-item page limit, optional count, ordering by most recently updated, and the hasNextPage mechanism for pagination, giving the agent a solid model of the tool's runtime behavior.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose and filters come first, followed by pagination behavior and the key pagination signal. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete enough: filters, page size, ordering, and how to paginate are all covered. An agent can correctly invoke the tool and interpret the result flow.

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%, so the schema already fully documents page, count, spaceKey, statusName, and assigneeName. The description adds a useful summary of filter meaning and pagination behavior but does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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?

The description clearly states the tool lists issues in the caller's organization and names the available filters, so an agent knows what resource is being operated on. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_issue, but the difference between listing issues and retrieving a single issue is strongly implied by the name and description.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need a paginated, filterable list of issues. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as get_issue for a single issue, leaving the choice somewhat implicit.

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