search_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states pagination behavior and default max results but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or that JQL overrides other filters (only implied by schema). Adequate but not rich.

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 two concise, front-loaded sentences with zero wasted words. It efficiently communicates purpose, filters, pagination, and usage guidance.

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 search tool with 13 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filters, pagination, and duplicate prevention. Lacks details on return format or JQL behavior, but overall is complete enough for a search operation.

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 description adds minimal value beyond listing filter types. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate; no additional semantic meaning for parameters is provided.

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 'Search for issues in Jira using JQL' and enumerates supported filter types. It explicitly guides the agent to use this tool before creating duplicates, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_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 provides clear context: use for finding existing issues before creating duplicates, and mentions pagination defaults. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives among siblings.

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