Search Fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It does add the 'fuzzy match' behavior, which is a useful context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain the refresh mechanism or potential latency, so it's moderate.

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 one concise sentence that communicates the core functionality without any filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the fuzzy-match detail is valuable. Perfect for a simple tool.

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 simple with only 3 optional parameters and a well-defined schema, and an output schema exists. The description covers the primary purpose but omits details like result ordering or the impact of refresh. However, given schema richness, it's reasonably complete.

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?

All three parameters (limit, keyword, refresh) have fully described schema entries covering their semantics, defaults, and empty-keyword behavior. The description itself adds no parameter-specific information, so with 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 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 identifies the tool as a search operation over Jira fields, using 'Search' as the verb and 'Jira fields' as the resource. It mentions 'fuzzy match' which gives a specific behavioral nuance, but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like jira_get_project_fields, though the name helps.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is a single sentence offering no context about use cases or exclusions. The parameter schema does add a note about empty keyword behavior, but that's in schema, not the description.

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