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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: a hard cap of 50 results, the rationale (bounding agent context), and the projection shape relative to jira_get_issue.

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 action and result shape, then examples. All sentences earn their place, though the parenthetical about links/URLs is slightly awkward to parse.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by describing count (up to 50) and projection relative to jira_get_issue. Adequate for a two-parameter search tool; nothing critical 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 baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by supplying three concrete JQL examples and explaining the purpose of the result cap. It doesn't add syntax detail for maxResults beyond the schema's own default/hard-cap note.

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 ('Search Jira issues with a JQL query') and explicitly distinguishes the result projection from the sibling jira_get_issue, noting it omits `links`. An agent can pick this versus jira_get_issue without opening either 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 clear context for narrowing the JQL when more results are needed and routes the agent to jira_get_issue for the structured links list. It lacks explicit when-not guidance (e.g. single known issue), but the routing to alternatives is present.

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