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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description usefully adds operational constraints the agent would otherwise not know: upstream maintenance mode, a 2-minute timeout, a 5GB-per-query ceiling, and the POST /jql endpoint. It does not describe return shape or failure behavior, so it stops short of full transparency.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the operational limits are packed into a single parenthetical. Minor redundancy in restating 'Run a JQL query' from the title prevents a 5.

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 power-user escape hatch with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the constraints an agent needs to avoid failed invocations (timeout, size limit, maintenance mode). It omits script examples and error-return behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 both parameters (script and params) are already documented in the schema. The description's mention that the script must define main() and that params is a global echoes the schema rather than adding new syntax or format guidance, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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+resource (run a JQL script) and clarifies the scope as 'arbitrary analysis' via a 'power-user escape hatch,' which cleanly distinguishes it from the canned-analysis siblings like mixpanel_segmentation or mixpanel_query_funnel. An agent can tell this is the raw-script tool 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?

'For arbitrary analysis' plus 'power-user escape hatch' conveys the context: reach for this when the predefined query tools can't express the analysis. However, it never names an alternative or states an explicit exclusion (e.g., 'prefer mixpanel_segmentation for standard event queries'), so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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