jira_issues_search

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint: true, and the description adds behavioral context: the return structure ({total, issues, next_page_token}) and the detail parameter for summary vs full. No contradictions. Could mention pagination behavior explicitly, but 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then guidelines, then return info. No extraneous text. Highly concise and well-structured.

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's complexity (JQL search, pagination, parameter details), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage guidance, return format, and parameter details through schema. Complete for an effective search tool.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds overall context and return structure, but doesn't add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 starts with 'Search Jira issues using JQL,' clearly stating the verb (search) and resource (Jira issues), and the use of JQL distinguishes it from other tools. Sibling tools like jira_issues_get (exact key) further differentiate it.

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 explicitly advises to 'Prefer targeted JQL over broad searches' and notes 'Not this when you know the exact issue key: use jira_issues_get instead,' providing clear when-to-use and when-not with an alternative.

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