Search Fields

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint: true, and the description adds behavioral context by explaining the 'refresh' parameter for forcing a field list refresh and the behavior when keyword is empty (lists first 'limit' fields). However, it does not cover potential outcomes like fuzzy match failures or rate limits.

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 concise with a clear first sentence and well-structured Args/Returns sections. It avoids verbosity while covering key points, though the docstring format could be more front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (3 optional params) and presence of an output schema (not shown but referenced), the description adequately explains purpose and behavior. It covers the main use case and parameter effects, though lacks details on error handling or output structure beyond 'JSON string'.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats parameter info from the schema without adding new meaning, except for the empty keyword behavior which is already in the schema. No additional value 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 Jira fields by keyword with fuzzy match', specifying the verb, resource, and method. It distinguishes from siblings like jira_get_field_options by focusing on searching fields rather than retrieving options. The return of matching field definitions is also explained.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as jira_get_field_options or other search tools. It lacks usage context like prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on the name alone.

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