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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that it returns specific fields (keys, summaries, status, assignee, priority), which is useful but partially redundant with the schema examples. No contradictions or additional behavioral quirks are needed.

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?

Two clear, front-loaded sentences with no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value: first defines action and resource, second clarifies return fields and use cases.

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 thorough annotations and an output schema (implied), the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage, and return data. No missing critical details for a search tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (jql, fields, max_results) and includes helpful examples. The description merely reiterates that results include certain fields, adding minimal new value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given schema richness.

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 searches Jira issues using JQL queries, which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like jira_get_issue (single issue retrieval) and jira_list_projects (project listing). It covers the scope of searching by project, status, assignee, or custom criteria.

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 explains when to use the tool (search tasks by criteria) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it, such as for retrieving a single issue. However, the existence of sibling tools provides implicit guidance, and the description itself is clear enough to avoid misuse.

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