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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the maximum result cap (50), the projection similarity to jira_get_issue, and the rationale for the cap (keeping agent context bounded). It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or side effects, but as a read-only search operation, the disclosed behaviors are adequate.

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 description is compact and well-structured. It opens with the core purpose, immediately addresses the cap and its reason, and then gives illustrative examples. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler. The front-loading of the primary action is ideal for quick agent parsing.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately covers the return projection (same as jira_get_issue) and the result cap. It also provides JQL examples to guide query construction. It does not describe error scenarios or what happens with zero results, but these are minor for a search tool. The essential calling context is present.

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 both parameters have descriptions. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing concrete JQL examples and clarifying the purpose of maxResults ('Increase only when you need a wider sweep'). It also explains the context-bounding rationale, which goes beyond the schema's dry 'Max issues to return.'

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 states a clear verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('Jira issues'), and the query method ('JQL query'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling jira_get_issue by noting the same projection, which helps an agent differentiate search from single-issue retrieval. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies when to use it (when you need to search issues) but does not explicitly contrast it with jira_get_issue or state 'use this when you don't have an issue key.' The examples provide practical context, and the hard cap note suggests a strategy for larger result sets, but it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative selection criteria.

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