Search users

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 real value by disclosing the return payload (accountIds) and the scoping behavior of projectKey (only assignable users), though it omits pagination limits and whether results are visibility-restricted.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the optional scope, then the return value. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the schema.

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 and 4 parameters, the description does the important work: it names the identifier returned and the intended downstream use. Minor gaps remain around result volume (maxResults default/cap) and the other fields in each user record, which an agent may need for disambiguation.

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% (site alone is documented), so the description must compensate. It explains query (name or email matching) and projectKey (restrict to assignable users), but maxResults is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent without page-size guidance for a capped search.

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 (find Jira users by name or email), plus the output it produces (accountIds) and its downstream use (assignee). No sibling tool performs user lookup, so the tool is unambiguous without opening either schema.

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 'Returns accountIds for use as assignee' clause implies it should be run before jira_assign_issue, but that sequencing is never stated. The projectKey guidance covers one conditional case, yet there is no when-to-use/when-not rule relative to jira_myself or jira_get_project.

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