searchJiraIssuesUsingJql

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: no pagination cost, result limits, or query complexity caveats, even though the schema hints at paging via nextPageToken.

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 short sentence with zero waste, front-loading the verb and resource. It is arguably too terse rather than bloated, but structurally clean.

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 JQL search tool with rich annotations and a well-described schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits result-shape expectations and pagination flow, but with no output schema and strong annotation coverage, the remaining gaps are modest.

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 80%, so the schema itself explains jql syntax, fields, maxResults default and nextPageToken. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Jira work items) plus the query language (JQL), so the action is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings such as getJiraIssue or listJiraIssueComments, which an agent might otherwise confuse with a lookup.

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 supplies no when-to-use guidance: nothing about when JQL search beats a direct getJiraIssue fetch, no mention of scoping, permissions, or limitations. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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