jira_search_issues

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

In the absence of annotations, the description discloses key behavioral details: the default behavior with no args, that query becomes a text search, and that jql overrides query. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but for a search tool these are less critical and the output schema covers return structure.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no redundancy. Every sentence adds meaningful information about the tool's behavior.

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 description covers the tool's main modes and dependencies, and with an output schema present, the absence of return-value details is acceptable. It lacks context on max_results default and pagination, but these are in the schema and not essential for tool selection.

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 already documents all three parameters with descriptions, meeting the 100% coverage baseline. The description adds the default 'no args' behavior (current user's open issues), which is not in the schema, and the priority relationship is reinforced.

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 states a specific verb ('Finds') and resource ('Jira issues'), and clarifies three invocation modes (no args, query, jql). This distinguishes it from sibling jira_get_issue, which retrieves a single issue.

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?

It clearly explains the meaning of no arguments, the query parameter, and the jql parameter, including precedence. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over jira_get_issue or other siblings, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding between search and direct issue retrieval.

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