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

Beyond annotations, it discloses that semantic search depends on the server's embedding model, that results are best-first, that `match` explains how each result was found, and that `unread_files` lists files the search could not read with the important caveat that absence of results says nothing about those files. This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 purpose and contrast with search_issues are front-loaded, and most sentences carry useful information about returns and limitations. The phrasing is dense and occasionally meandering with parenthetical asides, so it is not maximally concise, but it avoids filler.

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 still explains the return shape (`pages`, `files`, `match`, `unread_files`) and the key limitation around unreadable files. For a three-parameter search tool, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret it correctly.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description reinforces that `text` is for plain-language aboutness, but it does not add syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already provides for `limit` or `projectKey`; baseline 3 is 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource (find issues) and immediately scopes it to semantic/aboutness search rather than field search, explicitly naming the sibling search_issues (JQL) as the contrast. It also clarifies that the same search returns wiki pages and files, so an agent can distinguish its behavior without opening the 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 explicit when-to-use guidance for this tool (plain-language, meaning-based searches, including multilingual or differently phrased issues) and when to use the alternative (search_issues for field questions like mine, overdue, in status X). No inference is needed.

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