Count issues (JQL)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the count is 'approximate' (a real accuracy caveat for JQL) and no issue payloads are fetched, which signals cost/weight.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core behavior and packs the key differentiator ('without fetching them') into the trailing clause. 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 two-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete. The one gap is the return shape (is it a bare number or a wrapped object?), which matters since there is no output schema, but otherwise nothing an agent needs to call it is missing.

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 50%: the 'site' parameter is fully documented in-schema, but 'jql' has no description and the definition adds nothing about JQL syntax or validity. The description restates that a JQL query is the input but does not compensate for the undocumented required parameter.

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+resource ('Approximate count of issues matching a JQL query') and implicitly distinguishes itself from the search/fetch siblings via 'without fetching them'. It doesn't name jira_search_issues directly, but the read-only counting scope is unmistakable.

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 phrase 'without fetching them' implies you should use this when you only need a number rather than the issues themselves, which hints at the alternative. However, it never names jira_search_issues or states an explicit when-to-use/when-not rule, leaving the routing inference to the agent.

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