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 mentions the tool searches but doesn't describe key behaviors such as pagination (implied by max_results), authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's read-only (though searching is typically safe). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational constraints.

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 well-structured with a brief overview followed by a clear parameter list. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with key usage notes. There's no wasted text, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 moderate complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It excels in parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, limits). The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, but other operational aspects are underspecified, leaving room for improvement.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose with examples (e.g., 'currentUser()' for assignee, status names like 'To Do'), clarifies that jql is for advanced searches, and notes max_results has a default of 20. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 or simple filters, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_my_issues' or 'get_issue', which might also retrieve issues but with different scopes or methods.

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 implies usage by mentioning 'JQL or simple filters' and listing filter parameters, suggesting it's for flexible searching. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_my_issues' (for user-specific issues) or 'get_issue' (for a single issue by ID), leaving some ambiguity.

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