Search 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 safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return shape ('compact list') and the pagination continuation mechanism, which annotations cannot express. It omits the 100-result cap and default page size, though those live in the schema.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then examples, then paging. The examples are the longest element but each demonstrates a distinct pattern (filter+sort, current-user scoping, full-text). Minor waste in the quotation style, but nothing extraneous.

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 six-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers the query language, the return compactness and the paging loop. It stops short of explaining how `format: json` and `fields`/`extra` affect the response shape, which is the main remaining gap for an agent building a call.

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 two undocumented parameters are exactly the ones the description covers: `jql` (which has only a type and minLength in the schema) is illustrated with three concrete query examples, and `nextPageToken` (no schema description) is explained as the continuation token. `site`, `fields`, `format` and `maxResults` are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable since they are documented there.

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 ('Runs a JQL query and returns a compact list'), which is enough to distinguish it from mutation siblings and from fixed-scope readers like jira_get_sprint_issues. It does not explicitly contrast with jira_count_issues or jira_search_my_tickets, which are the nearest neighbours.

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 three JQL examples imply when the tool is appropriate (arbitrary filtering, sorting, text search) and 'Use nextPageToken to continue' gives a paging cue. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over jira_count_issues (counts only) or jira_search_my_tickets (pre-scoped), so routing between them is left to inference.

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