jql_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the API endpoint, not read-only status, pagination behavior, result size limits, or potential rate limiting. For a search tool, agents would benefit from knowing whether this is a safe read operation and how paging works.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste, front-loading the primary function (JQL search) and adding the relevant API version. It is appropriately sized for a tool with schema coverage of 100%.

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?

The schema covers parameter details, but the overall description lacks information about return shape, read-only nature, or how pagination interacts with maxResults. For a search tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is a noticeable gap, though not critical for basic invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but the schema itself already documents all five parameters, including defaults and pagination token semantics. No compensation is needed.

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 ('searches'), a resource ('issues'), and the query mechanism ('JQL'), clearly differentiating it from siblings like get_issue (single issue retrieval) and list_projects. The REST API v3 endpoint reference further anchors its scope.

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 implies usage: use this when you need to search issues with JQL. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., get_issue for single issue lookup), relying on the agent to infer the boundary from sibling names.

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