search_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the operation is paginated via next_page_token 'from previous response', which is useful context beyond structured data, but it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or whether JQL errors fail the whole call.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and zero-waste. The Args block restates parameter names already in the schema, but it adds examples and constraints, so the redundancy is minimal.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a paginated search tool with no annotations, the description omits how to know when more pages remain and gives no hint about JQL validation behavior, leaving an agent to guess at the retrieval loop.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it gives a concrete JQL example, explains fields as comma-separated, states the max_results range and default (matching the schema default of 50), and explains the pagination token's origin.

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 issues') plus the query language (JQL), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_issue or get_projects, but the JQL-based search scope is clear from the text alone.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_issue for a single known key. Usage is only inferable from the verb 'search'; nothing tells the agent when this tool is the wrong choice.

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