search_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the output format (Markdown list with specific fields per line), the cap on results via the limit parameter, and that the output notes when more matches exist. This goes beyond a bare 'returns search results' and gives the agent a concrete expectation of what will happen.

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?

The description is four sentences with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, an example is provided, and the cap/note behavior is clearly stated. Every sentence adds operational value, making it compact and easy to parse.

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 tool with an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how to invoke it (with example), what the result lines contain, and the constraint on limit. The output schema handles field definitions, so the description need not repeat them. Nothing critical for correct invocation 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 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying that results are capped at limit (1-100), which is not in the schema (no min/max defined), and by providing an example JQL query that clarifies usage. It also notes that any length/complexity works, which the schema already hints at but is reinforced here.

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?

The description starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Search Jira with a JQL query' and specifies the output format as a compact Markdown list. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_issue or get_comments by focusing on search across issues rather than retrieving a single known entity.

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 provides context for when to use the tool (when you need to find issues matching a JQL query) and includes an example JQL. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'use get_issue to fetch a single issue by key'). The routing to siblings is implied but not stated, so it falls short of a 4.

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