jira_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose the return format ('JSON string representing the search results including pagination info'), but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authentication needs, or potential side effects. 'Search' implies read-only, but a more explicit statement would improve the score.

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 mostly concise (one sentence plus Args/Returns sections), but the Args list is redundant with the schema's property descriptions. It is structured, but the redundant parameter enumeration keeps it from being highly concise.

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?

Given the rich schema (100% coverage) and existence of an output schema, the description provides adequate high-level context: purpose, key args, and return envelope. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use related project-specific or issue-specific search tools, but this is a minor gap for a well-documented search 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema provides detailed parameter descriptions with examples. The description's Args list only reiterates parameter names without adding meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not enrich the schema.

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 clearly states 'Search Jira issues using JQL', giving a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_get_issue (specific issue lookup) and jira_search_fields (field metadata search).

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 use case is implied by the JQL mention: use this when you need flexible JQL-based issue search. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like jira_get_project_issues or jira_get_issue, nor any exclusions.

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