jira_search

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

Despite no annotations, the description reveals important behavioral traits: results come back as a 'trimmed list with refs', and there is a 'full' parameter to bypass the summary projection. It also states that mutation actions reject full:true. This provides behavioral clarity 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 main description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded. The schema description adds necessary details without excessive verbosity. A slightly more structured presentation could improve clarity, but it is efficient overall.

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?

Given the 10 parameters and low schema coverage (30%), the description explains the action logic and the full parameter but fails to cover many pagination and field selection parameters. There is no output schema, and the return value is only described as a 'trimmed list with refs', which is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 schema description adds meaning to the action enum and the full parameter, explaining their roles. However, with only 30% schema description coverage, many parameters (expand, startAt, maxResults, nextPageToken) are not explained in the description, leaving gaps. The description partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 two main purposes: searching Jira issues with JQL and fetching JQL autocomplete metadata. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_issue, which handles individual issues, and other search-related siblings.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that for specific issue operations, one should use jira_issue, or under what circumstances to use search versus other tools. No exclusions or context are provided.

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