jira_search_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses pagination behavior, total count, and the return dict structure. It also explains the role of start_at and max_results. While it doesn't explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, 'search' implies no side effects, and no annotations contradict this. This is good transparency for a read-oriented tool.

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 short purpose statement, a note on pagination, and clear Args/Returns sections. It front-loads the main purpose and remains appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, with no redundant sentences.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description explains the return dict structure (issues array, total, start_at, max_results). All three parameters are documented with defaults and usage. For a simple tool with 3 parameters and no nested objects, the description covers all necessary information for an agent to invoke it correctly, including JQL format and pagination.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively: jql is described with an example, max_results explains its purpose and default, and start_at is described in the context of pagination. This adds meaning well beyond the schema's types and defaults.

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 opens with 'Search for JIRA issues using JQL,' which clearly identifies the action (search) and resource (JIRA issues). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_get_issue and jira_create_issue. The JQL specification further clarifies the search capability and scope.

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 provides clear usage context by explaining that JQL is used for querying and explicitly advises 'Use start_at to page through large result sets.' It gives a JQL example and explains pagination. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like jira_get_issue, though the name and purpose make this obvious.

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