jira_search_issues

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld safety, and the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the return shape ('compact issue summaries and pagination') and a notable limitation ('custom fields are not emitted in this version'). It does not detail pagination defaults or rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences with the read-only scoping front-loaded, the return shape next, and the field limitation last. No filler; every sentence carries a distinct fact.

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?

With no output schema, the description does sketch the return ('compact summaries and pagination') and flags custom-field omission. However, for a 4-param tool at 0% schema coverage, it omits JQL syntax expectations and pagination parameter behavior (startAt/maxResults defaults and caps), leaving gaps an agent must guess at.

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 compensate. It explains 'fields limits fields fetched' and the custom-field limitation, but leaves jql, startAt, and maxResults undocumented beyond their self-evident names and the passing mention of 'pagination'.

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 and resource ('search Jira Server/Data Center using JQL') and clarifies it is read-only. This implicitly distinguishes it from jira_get_issue (single issue) and the mutation siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 JQL-based search purpose implies when to use it (bulk/filtered issue retrieval), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over jira_get_issue or other siblings, nor any numbered acceptance criteria or exclusions.

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