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

The annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld behavior, so the bar is low. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the tool depends on a connected Jira app, and the failure mode is surfaced as an error that points the user to Wavelength settings. That auth/prerequisite disclosure is the kind of thing annotations cannot express.

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?

Four short sentences with no filler: what it searches, the project_id behavior, the downstream workflow, and the not-connected failure mode. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and everything after it is actionable.

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 burden of saying what comes back, and it does reasonably well (projects, issues, and issue types when project_id is given) plus the downstream workflow needed to use those results. It is missing detail on result shape, pagination, or how many matches are returned, and the stray issue_key reference leaves a small ambiguity.

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% and both parameters are already documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting and a 3 is the baseline. The description largely echoes the schema for project_id (issue types) and adds no syntax or format detail; it also references an issue_key that does not appear as an input parameter, which muddies rather than clarifies the parameter set.

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 specific verb and resource ("Search the connected Jira site for projects and issues") and the word "Jira" immediately separates it from the cluster of sibling find_* tools (find_confluence_targets, find_notion_pages, find_salesforce_records). It also names the downstream sibling send_flow_to_jira, so an agent can place it without opening any 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?

It gives clear usage context: use project_id to also enumerate issue types, and feed project_id + issue_type_id into send_flow_to_jira to create an issue, or use issue_key to comment on an existing one. That effectively defines when to call this tool (as the discovery step before writing to Jira). It stops short of any explicit exclusion or statement of when not to call it.

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