Search Assignable Users

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds further behavioral context: it returns the full result set for disambiguation, requires exactly one of project_key or issue_key, and works without the global Browse Users permission. This goes well beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 structured into clear paragraphs: purpose, usage scenarios, and context/permissions. It is longer than necessary but every sentence adds meaningful information. The front-loading of the core purpose and immediate usage guidance makes it easy to scan.

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 an output schema present, the description covers all critical aspects: purpose, usage context, parameter constraints, permission considerations, and behavioral nuances. It is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity and leaves no significant gaps for an agent to misuse it.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds valuable meaning by explaining the relationship between project_key and issue_key (exactly one must be provided) and clarifying the query parameter's behavior (case-insensitive, partial match). This supplemental constraint and search semantics improve understanding beyond the schema.

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 searches Jira users assignable in a given project or issue, with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_user_profile by noting it returns the full result set and supports human-name search, which sets it apart from siblings.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: use when you have a display name/partial name/email fragment and need a concrete identifier for assignee/reporter/watcher. It also names alternative get_user_profile and explains why that tool is not suitable, offering clear exclusions.

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