jira_get_users

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is safe. The description adds value by listing return fields (display name, email, account status, account type) and mentioning pagination support, which goes beyond the annotation. It does not detail potential errors or rate limits, but for a read-only search tool, this is sufficient.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence clearly states the purpose and search options, the second covers return fields and pagination. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 absence of an output schema, the description covers return fields adequately. It mentions pagination and all search parameter options. No required parameters, so no missing prerequisites. For a search tool with simple inputs, this is complete enough.

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 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds context by grouping search criteria (name, email, username, account ID) and highlighting pagination, which is not explicitly aggregated in the schema. This adds marginal value over the structured fields.

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 'Search for users' specifying the verb and resource, and lists multiple search criteria (name, email, username, account ID) and return fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jira_search_issues and jira_get_visible_projects which target different resources.

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 implies usage for user searches but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or specific scenarios is provided. Sibling tools are all about issues or projects, so the intent is clear but not explicitly contrasted.

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