Find possible duplicate tickets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description still earns credit by disclosing which fields are searched (summary, description, AND comments — a non-obvious scope) and that output is candidate duplicates for the user to judge rather than an automatic decision. It omits ranking/recency behavior and the default result cap, which would be useful for a 6-param open-world search.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the precondition ('Before creating a ticket') front-loaded ahead of the mechanics and the return semantics. Nothing repeats the title verbatim or pads with 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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return shape, and 'returns likely duplicates' is thin — an agent doesn't know what fields come back or how many. It also leaves maxResults and issueType entirely undocumented across both schema and prose. Adequate for a pre-create sanity check, but there are clear gaps for a 6-parameter tool.

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 67%, and the description maps only two of six parameters — 'summary/keywords' to query and 'a project' to projectKey. The undocumented-in-schema parameters (issueType, maxResults) get no compensation from the description, nor does it clarify the includeDone default's effect on duplicate detection. Baseline 3 fits.

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 ('searches a project for existing issues matching a summary/keywords') and adds the text-search scope (summary, description, comments) plus the intent ('returns likely duplicates'). The purpose is unambiguous and clearly narrower than a generic search, though the sibling jira_search_issues is never named as the contrasting option.

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?

'Before creating a ticket' gives a concrete trigger condition, so an agent knows exactly when to reach for this tool rather than jira_create_issue. However, no exclusion is stated — nothing says 'do not use this for general issue lookup, use jira_search_issues instead' — so the alternative routing is left implicit.

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