jira_search_issue_fields

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

The description discloses the partial/fuzzy matching behavior with an example, which is valuable information beyond the schema. It also indicates that the tool returns both IDs and names, and its non-destructive search/return nature is implicit. No annotations are provided, so this behavioral disclosure partially fills that gap.

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 concise at two sentences, with the purpose stated upfront and a helpful example woven in. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function and usage.

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 and the description covers its core purpose, parameters, and expected output (field IDs and names). The presence of both parameters in the schema and the absence of complex return structures make this description sufficient.

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?

The schema descriptions already cover both parameters fully, including the partial-match behavior and example values. The description reiterates the same information without adding new semantics, so it adds minimal value 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 for specific fields by name in a JIRA issue and returns matching field IDs and names. It provides a concrete example of partial/fuzzy matching, making the purpose unmistakable. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like jira_get_issue_field_names, the search-specific scope and mention of returning IDs and names differentiate it effectively.

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 instructs users to use the tool when they need to find the field ID for a specific field name, which provides clear context for its intended use. It does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the guidance is sufficient for a targeted search tool.

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