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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly discloses the 50-result hard cap and the projection alignment with jira_get_issue, and explains the rationale behind the cap. While it doesn't state pagination or error behavior, the cap disclosure is meaningful behavioral context beyond what the schema provides.

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, zero wasted words. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the action, the second addresses the cap and its rationale, the third provides three concrete, varied JQL examples. Exceptionally economical given the information conveyed.

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 search tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: search mechanism, result cap, projection equivalence to a known sibling tool, and usage examples. It doesn't describe return value structure, but there's no output schema and the projection reference partially compensates. A small gap remains on pagination or offsetting for the 50-cap case.

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 documents both parameters well. The description adds value by explaining the default (20) and cap (50) for maxResults and by providing JQL syntax examples, but the 'same projection as jira_get_issue' reference is useful structural context. This is a solid baseline-3 case where schema and description share the load evenly.

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?

Description states a specific verb+resource: 'Search Jira issues with a JQL query.' It names the search mechanism (JQL), the resource (Jira issues), the return limit (50), and the projection (same as jira_get_issue). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_get_issue (single issue) and jira_create_issue.

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?

Provides concrete guidance on when to use: narrow the JQL when more than 50 results are needed, with explicit rationale (hard cap to keep agent context bounded). Includes common JQL examples showing realistic usage patterns. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance against jira_get_issue, but the examples and cap explanation convey clear usage context.

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