Search Assignable Users

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), it discloses the underlying endpoint, a real permission nuance (works without the global 'Browse Users' permission that locked-down DC bot accounts lack), and the identifier shape returned per deployment (name/key on Server/DC, accountId on Cloud). The claim that it 'returns the full result set' sits awkwardly next to a default limit of 20, a small internal tension that keeps this from a 5.

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 purpose, then usage condition, then result shape, then the project/issue constraint — a sensible priority order with no filler. It runs four short paragraphs for a four-parameter tool, which is slightly more than strictly needed but every sentence carries information.

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 an output schema present, rich annotations, and 100% schema description coverage, the description covers everything left: when to prefer it over get_user_profile, the required scoping context, the permission model, and the identifier formats returned. An agent has what it needs to call this correctly on the first try.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds value by emphasizing the mutual-exclusivity rule for project_key/issue_key and by explaining why you need the result at all — to convert a human name into a concrete accountId/name/key for downstream fields. It does not describe limit behavior (truncation vs. full set), which is the one gap the schema leaves ambiguous.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource — search Jira users assignable in a given project or issue — and immediately names the sibling it is not: get_user_profile 'only resolves one identifier and is not designed for human-name search.' An agent can distinguish the two without reading either 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?

States the triggering condition concretely ('when you have a display name / partial name / email fragment and need a concrete identifier to feed into assignee, reporter, watcher'), names the explicit alternative and why it fails, and gives the hard constraint that exactly one of project_key or issue_key must be supplied.

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