findJiraIssueAssignableUsers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond these annotations—no mention of auth requirements, rate limits, or result scoping. Since the description adds nothing beyond what structured fields provide, it falls below the midpoint.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, for a tool with four parameters and no output schema, it may be overly terse—the brevity is efficient but leaves structural context thin.

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?

The description is incomplete for a tool with four parameters (three undocumented), 25% schema coverage, and no output schema. It does not explain how projectKey and issueIdOrKey interact, what results are returned, or how to use the tool effectively. The annotations cover safety basics, but param and usage gaps remain.

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 25%—only 'query' is documented. The description does not explain projectKey, issueIdOrKey, or maxResults, leaving three of four parameters undocumented. The phrase 'space or work item' faintly hints at the purpose of projectKey/issueIdOrKey, but it is too vague to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Find') and resource ('users assignable to a Jira space or work item'), distinguishing the tool from generic user lookups like getJiraUser or lookupJiraAccountId. An agent can immediately understand its scope without opening the 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?

The description only states what the tool does. It gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., getJiraUser for general user lookup), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferable from the purpose but not stated.

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