Search Issues

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals the read-only nature, and the description does not contradict this. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as pagination behavior, result limits, or data aggregation details. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 a single, direct sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, wasting zero 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?

The tool is moderately complex (8 parameters, dual pagination modes, display name option), but the description only states the core function. The rich input schema and presence of an output schema compensate, yet the description misses an opportunity to summarize key capabilities like token-based pagination or field selection options, leaving the agent to discover these from parameter docs.

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 input schema fully documents all 8 parameters, including examples and defaults for jql, limit, expand, fields, start_at, page_token, projects_filter, and use_display_names. The description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Search Jira issues using JQL' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this broadly applicable search tool from sibling tools like jira_get_issue (single issue) and jira_search_assignable_users (user search). It also explicitly names the query language, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool instead of related search tools (e.g., jira_get_project_issues, confluence_search). It does not mention use cases, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage solely from the name and JQL reference.

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