jira_search_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool searches using JQL, without explaining any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or error handling. The schema already documents maxResults, so the description adds no new behavioral context.

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 sentence of 10 words, which is concise and front-loaded. It states the core purpose without unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more informative (e.g., mentioning that results are paginated) while still remaining concise, so a score of 4 is given.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return format, default fields, or how to handle pagination. While the schema covers all parameters, the tool's complexity (JQL queries) warrants more context about capabilities and limitations. The description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 each parameter has a clear description (e.g., 'JQL query to search for issues', 'List of fields to include in the response', 'Maximum number of results to return'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as JQL syntax examples or field name conventions. The baseline score 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 states the tool's purpose: 'Search for issues in Jira using JQL'. The verb 'search' and resource 'issues' are specific, and the mention of JQL distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_get_issue (single issue retrieval) or jira_create_issue. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, which prevents a score of 5.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention that JQL is a powerful query language for complex searches, nor does it indicate that simpler lookups could use jira_get_issue. There is no context about prerequisites, common use cases, or when to avoid this tool.

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