jira_search_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it 'Returns a summary of matching issues', which clarifies the output nature. However, it does not elaborate on read-only safety, pagination, or other side effects, though the schema covers some parameter behaviors. This is adequate but not rich.

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 three short sentences that immediately state the search action, usage context, and return type. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it ideal for quick agent comprehension.

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 has 6 parameters with a rich schema, no output schema, and no annotations. The description gives a general sense of return ('summary of matching issues') but doesn't specify pagination or result format details, though the schema covers parameters. It is complete enough for a search tool but could be more explicit about pagination behavior.

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%, with detailed descriptions, examples, and important notes for each parameter (e.g., jql examples, pagination defaults, field recommendations). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so 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 searches for JIRA issues using JQL, naming the action (search), resource (JIRA issues), and query method (JQL). It distinguishes from siblings like jira_get_issue (single issue retrieval) and jira_search_projects (project search) by focusing on issue search.

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 says 'Use this to find issues based on various criteria like project, status, assignee, text content, etc.', providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough to differentiate from sibling tools.

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