jira_search_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the search functionality and JQL examples but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, the format of returned results (e.g., list of issues with fields), or pagination behavior beyond the maxResults parameter. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant 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 highly concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides practical examples. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying usage without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a search tool with good schema coverage.

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 tool's moderate complexity (search with JQL), 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the what and how-to-use but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, permissions, result format). With no output schema, the description should ideally hint at return values, but it doesn't, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (jql and maxResults). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it provides JQL examples that illustrate the jql parameter's usage but doesn't explain JQL syntax or constraints. No additional parameter semantics are provided, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'Search for Jira issues using JQL (Jira Query Language).' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('Jira issues'), and method ('using JQL'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like jira_get_issue (which retrieves a single issue by ID) or jira_get_issues (if it existed), though the JQL focus provides some implicit distinction.

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 provides implied usage through JQL examples, suggesting this tool is for complex, filtered searches. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like jira_get_issue (for single issues by ID) or jira_get_projects (for project lists). No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites are mentioned.

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