jira_search_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output shape (list with key, summary, status, assignee, priority), which is useful. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, how the 'fields' parameter modifies the returned set, or any pagination/error behaviors. It offers minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious search semantics.

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 description is a single, clear sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the action and immediately specifies the return contract, making it easy to scan and every word earns its place.

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 low-complexity tool with one required parameter and complete schema coverage, the description covers the core purpose and default return shape. However, it does not clarify how the 'fields' parameter changes the return fields, so an agent could be surprised if results do not always contain the listed default fields. This is a notable gap in an otherwise adequate description.

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 the schema already fully documents jql, fields, and maxResults. The description adds a mention of default output fields but does not explain how the 'fields' parameter interacts with those defaults. It contributes little beyond the schema, earning the baseline score.

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 action ('Search Jira issues using JQL') and the resource being searched, and it explicitly lists the returned fields. This sharply distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_get_issue (retrieve single issue) and jira_create_issue (create new issue).

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 clearly frames this as a JQL-based search operation, implying it is for filtering/listing issues rather than fetching a single known issue or modifying issues. It provides clear context without explicit exclusions or alternative tool names, so an agent can reasonably route to it for search scenarios.

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