listJiraFilters

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the visibility scope and a partial return description ('IDs and JQL'), but says nothing about pagination, default result caps, or what a caller does with the returned JQL.

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 that carries the resource, the scope, and the return shape with no filler. Nothing to trim.

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 no output schema, the 'returning IDs and JQL' clause is useful, but three parameters remain opaque and there is no pagination guidance for a tool that returns lists. Adequate for a simple list call, but leaves real gaps.

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 only 25% – only accountId has a description ('Filter by owner'). startAt, filterName, and maxResults are undocumented in both the schema and the description, and the description never compensates, so an agent gets no meaning for three of four parameters.

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 ('Search') and resource ('saved filters') with a scope qualifier ('visible to the current user') and even previews the return shape ('IDs and JQL'). No sibling tool deals with saved filters, so confusion risk is low, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with any sibling.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of pagination behavior, and no hint that this is the entry point for obtaining a filterId used elsewhere. The visibility scope is stated but that is a constraint, not usage guidance.

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