jira_search_issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: it never mentions pagination, the default/max result window, or what a search returns, which are the traits an agent would actually need here.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded ahead of the syntax hints, with no filler. Slightly terse in a way that leaves gaps, but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the full burden of describing returns, and it says nothing about result shape, ordering, or pagination. It covers the query syntax adequately for a 2-parameter tool but leaves the output side and 'max_results' semantics unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does add real syntax for the required 'query' parameter (project:KEY, status:"Name", type:Bug, key:KEY-1, free text), but leaves 'max_results' and its default of 10 / cap of 50 entirely unexplained.

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+resource ('Search Jira issues'), which is clearly distinct from write-oriented siblings like jira_create_issue, jira_add_comment, and jira_transition_issue. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from any sibling, but the verb alone is unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites, rate limits, or scope caveats. The 'Use project:KEY...' sentence describes query syntax rather than selection guidance, so an agent gets no routing help.

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