search_issues

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully communicate behavioral traits. It states 'search' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose whether the search is paginated, if there are rate limits, whether it returns full issue objects or summaries, or if authentication is required. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the purpose. It is front-loaded and efficient, with no unnecessary words. However, for a tool with three parameters and no annotations, slightly more detail (e.g., a second sentence on typical usage) could improve completeness without harming 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 the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return format, error handling, or common use cases. For a search tool with multiple parameters, the agent would benefit from knowing that results are paginated or that fields can reduce payload size. The current description is too minimal to fully prepare an agent for correct invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (jql, fields, maxResults). The tool description does not add any additional meaning or usage hints beyond what the schema already provides. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no extra value here.

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 core function: searching JIRA issues using a JQL query. The verb 'search' and resource 'issues' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like get_issue (single issue retrieval) and mutation tools (create_issue, update_issue). However, it does not elaborate on the search capabilities or scope (e.g., whether it supports advanced filtering beyond JQL).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not clarify that get_issue should be used to fetch a single issue by key, or that search_issues is appropriate for bulk queries. There are no usage hints, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and siblings.

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