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 burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait ('Returns a summary table of matching issues') and a concrete JQL example, but it does not mention behavior on invalid JQL, empty results, read-only guarantees, or pagination details. That is acceptable for a search tool but not especially 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 compact and front-loaded, containing purpose, return type, and a useful syntax example in just two sentences with no wasted words. Every sentence contributes to understanding how and why to invoke the tool.

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 tool with only two parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it states the query language, gives an example, and describes the high-level result. The main gap is the ambiguity around 'summary table' — an agent might not know exactly which fields are returned — but that does not prevent correct invocation.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value with a JQL example ('project = PROJ AND status = "In Progress" ORDER BY updated DESC'), which gives the agent concrete syntax guidance beyond the schema's minimal 'JQL query string'. No additional meaning is needed for maxResults since the schema fully defines its range and default.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Search Jira issues using JQL') and further clarifies the outcome ('Returns a summary table of matching issues'). This makes the tool's behavior clear and distinct from siblings like get_issue and search_users, which operate on different resources or use a different method.

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 purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it — when needing to query Jira issues using JQL — but there is no explicit guidance about alternatives such as get_issue for fetching a single issue by key. The usage is implied rather than stated, leaving some ambiguity around tool selection.

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