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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, it discloses a per-person rate limit, the failure mode for unreadable queries ('comes back with its reason'), and the non-obvious currentUser() semantics (the project token's owner, not the caller). It also enumerates the returned fields, which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and alternative routing, and every clause carries information. The semicolon-chained style makes it denser than needed, and the trailing audience clause is the weakest sentence, but nothing is padding.

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 compensates by listing the returned fields and the error shape, and it covers scope, targeting, rate limits, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: concrete JQL examples, the currentUser() interpretation, and the 'project' vs 'issue' either/or targeting rule. It does not restate the limit bound, which the schema already covers.

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 and resource (search the linked Jira with JQL) and immediately disambiguates from both get_linked_jira_issue (single-issue read) and search_issues (this tracker's own issues). An agent can pick the right 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?

Explicit routing: use search_issues for this tracker's issues, get_linked_jira_issue to read one issue whole, and name the target by 'project' or by 'issue'. It also states the audience ('for the people who work in the project') and a hard rate limit of 10 linked-Jira reads per minute per person.

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