jira_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. It correctly indicates that the tool searches using JQL and provides syntax examples, which connotes a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose details such as pagination behavior, result structure, potential errors, or limits beyond the schema's maxResults default. The description is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 a single sentence with two useful example queries. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately gives actionable examples. No filler or repetition; every part earns its place.

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 search tool with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and query language. It lacks explicit return-value details, but the tool name and usage context make the expected behavior inferrable. The absence of annotations is partially mitigated by the clarity of the search action. Overall, an agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so both jql and maxResults are already documented in the schema. The description adds example JQL strings, which help illustrate valid input syntax for the jql parameter, but it does not elaborate on parameter format, constraints, or interactions beyond what the schema provides. Hence the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function: 'Search for Jira issues using JQL'. It names a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('Jira issues'), and a distinctive mechanism (JQL). This differentiates it from siblings like jira_get_issue, which retrieves a single issue, and jira_get_projects, which lists projects.

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 examples ('project = PROJ AND status = Open', 'assignee = currentUser() AND status != Done') illustrate realistic usage and imply this tool is for filtering/querying issues, not for single-issue lookups or mutations. While it doesn't explicitly state 'use this instead of jira_get_issue when you need to filter or search', the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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