Count issues

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses that the count comes from Jira's search index and is an estimate that drifts under concurrent writes. This non-obvious consistency behavior is valuable context an agent could not infer from annotations alone.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying a distinct piece of information: what the tool does, its estimate semantics, appropriate use cases, and quoting rules. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 simple count operation with two parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, usage context, and parameter edge cases. The return value is sufficiently conveyed through 'the number' and 'answer how many'.

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 3 is the baseline. The description adds value by giving concrete JQL quoting guidance ('Values with spaces need double quotes') and linking quoting rules to jira_search, which supplements the schema's terse parameter description.

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 names a specific verb and resource: count the issues a JQL matches. It also distinguishes itself from jira_search by explicitly stating it does not fetch any issues, which is the key differentiating behavior.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool to size a query or answer 'how many', then read rows with jira_search. It names the alternative directly and provides context for when the estimate is acceptable versus when rows should be fetched.

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