Search Fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is fully covered. The description adds only the 'fuzzy match' matching semantics; it says nothing about caching, what 'refresh' actually re-fetches, or result ordering, so the extra value is modest.

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 well-formed sentence with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing in it needs to be trimmed.

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 full schema coverage, an output schema, and rich annotations, the definition is serviceable for invocation but thin for selection. It does not clarify how it relates to sibling field-discovery tools, which is the main thing an agent needs to choose correctly.

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% and each of the three parameters (limit, keyword, refresh) has its own description, including the empty-keyword default behavior. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 Jira fields') plus the matching mode ('fuzzy match'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the many field-related siblings such as jira_get_project_fields, jira_get_create_fields, or jira_get_field_options.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus jira_get_project_fields, jira_get_create_fields, or jira_get_field_options, nor any stated preconditions. The only implied usage is that a keyword drives a fuzzy search, and the empty-keyword fallback behavior lives in the schema rather than the description.

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