search_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns (key, summary, status, etc.) but does not explicitly indicate it is read-only, nor does it mention any prerequisites, rate limits, or side effects. For a search operation, the absence of an explicit read-only note is a notable gap.

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, front-loaded with the action ('Search Jira issues using JQL') and immediately followed by the return fields. There is zero filler, and every word 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?

No output schema is defined, so the description appropriately lists the return fields (key, summary, status, assignee, priority, type), giving agents a clear picture of what to expect. It does not mention pagination behavior for maxResults or error conditions, but these are adequately covered by the schema and are not essential for this simple 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?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for both parameters (jql and maxResults), including an example for jql. The description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema already conveys, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 is specific: 'Search Jira issues using JQL' uses a clear verb and resource, and it lists the returned fields. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_issue, which retrieves a single issue, and mutation tools like create_issue or update_issue. No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 description clearly indicates this tool is for searching issues via JQL, which is a use case distinct from the sibling tools (e.g., get_issue for a single known issue). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though given it is the only search tool, the context is clear.

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