jira_search_issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety. The description adds only the duplicate-avoidance intent, not behaviors like result bounds or pagination behavior, but this is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that says the operation, scope, and purpose with no wasted words.

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 read-only search tool with one required parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient: an agent knows what to pass and why. It does not describe the return shape or JQL details, but the tool name and schema cover the essentials.

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. 'por JQL' clarifies what the jql parameter expresses, but maxResults is left to its name and schema constraints. This is partial compensation, not full.

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 ('Busca'), a resource ('issues existentes'), and a search method ('por JQL'), so an agent can tell this is existing-issue search. It does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like preview_issue or list_projects, but the JQL scope makes the purpose 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?

'para evitar duplicidade' provides a clear intended context: run this search before creating an issue to avoid duplicates. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of an explicit 5.

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