Jira: Search Issues (JQL)

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

With no annotations, the description carries behavioral disclosure. It mentions the endpoint path and that it returns a page with selected fields, but lacks details on error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits. Basic transparency but incomplete.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action and endpoint, no fluff. Every sentence adds value. Excellent conciseness.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal. It explains return type (page of issues with selected fields) but not pagination details or error scenarios. Adequate but could be more 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters. It briefly mentions 'selected fields' which relates to the fields parameter, but no deeper explanation.

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?

Description clearly states action 'search', resource 'issues', and method 'using JQL'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_get_issue by specifying JQL-based search and returning a page of issues.

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?

Description implies usage for searching issues with JQL but does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives like jira_get_issue or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Given the clear purpose, this is adequate but not exemplary.

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