jira_search_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no read-only confirmation, no mention of the 100-result hard cap, no pagination behavior, no statement of what happens when JQL is malformed. A search tool with zero annotation coverage needs far more than one sentence.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, so it is efficient in form. The brevity is arguably under-specification rather than conciseness, but as structure it is clean and the purpose is stated first.

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 three-parameter query tool with no output schema, no annotations, and only one-third of parameters documented, the description should explain result shape, pagination, and field selection. None of that is present, leaving the agent to guess at core behavior.

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 only 33% — the lone documented parameter, jql, is described tautologically as 'JQL expression.' The description adds no meaning for fields (which fields are returned, whether it defaults to all) or maxResults (the schema caps it at 100, which is worth calling out). It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (Search) and resource (Jira issues) with the mechanism (JQL expression), which is enough to distinguish it from jira_get_issue or jira_create_issue in the sibling list. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings or states the scope of what it returns.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus jira_get_issue for a known key, nor any prerequisites such as required Jira permissions or project scope. The agent must infer that this is the broad-query tool from the name alone.

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