search_jira_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that this is a search operation, which weakly implies read-only behavior, but it does not disclose JQL error behavior, authentication requirements, or the fact that it returns matching issues without modifying them. More behavioral context is needed for a no-annotation tool.

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 short and front-loaded with the action and method. The second sentence adds a useful role statement, though it is slightly redundant with the first; overall there is no waste.

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?

The schema documents all parameters, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin for a tool that returns complex Jira issue data. It explains enough to invoke the tool, but not enough to fully set expectations about response shape or failure modes.

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%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond stating JQL usage, which matches the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Searches for Jira issues') and specifies the method (JQL), which is clear. It distinguishes it from Confluence search tools and issue-fetch-by-key tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling issue-listing/search tools.

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 phrase 'primary way to find issues that match specific criteria' implies when to use it, but it doesn't explicitly state alternatives or exclusions among the many sibling issue-search tools. The guidance is present but mostly implicit.

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