Execute Arbitrary JQL

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses the HTTP method (GET) and the raw-data output, which conveys read-only behavior. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but the schema documents maxResults and the description's emphasis on arbitrary JQL hints at potential complexity. Overall, it adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 only two sentences, with no filler. The first sentence states the action and output; the second provides usage context. All words contribute to understanding.

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 description is complete enough for a read-only query tool: it specifies the purpose, the alternative, and the output type ('raw issue data'). The absence of an output schema is mitigated by this output description. It does not detail error scenarios or pagination, but these are minor for a well-scoped tool with a fully described schema.

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 the description only needs to add minimal context. It aligns 'requested fields' with the fields parameter and 'arbitrary JQL' with the jql parameter, but does not explain default behavior or parameter interactions. The schema itself already provides parameter-level descriptions, so the description adds no critical new semantics.

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 runs arbitrary JQL queries via the Jira REST API and returns raw issue data. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling search_issues by mentioning its fixed field set, making the scope and resource 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?

It gives explicit guidance: 'Use this for ad-hoc reporting when search_issues' fixed field set isn't enough.' This names the alternative and specifies the condition for choosing this tool, which is clear and actionable.

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