find_jira_user

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

Annotations only carry readOnlyHint=true, and the description goes well beyond that: it discloses the required "Browse users" permission and the 403 failure mode, the exact return shape, the empty-array behavior, and the conditionally absent emailAddress field. This is genuinely useful operational context an agent could not infer.

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 dense sentences with the endpoint and purpose front-loaded, followed by prerequisites and return shape. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

For a two-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, permission prerequisites, and return values well enough to call it correctly. The only real gap is the absence of routing against the duplicate jira_search_users sibling.

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% and both parameters (query substring semantics, maxResults default of 50) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Search Jira users") and even names the underlying endpoint, which is more than most definitions offer. However, it never acknowledges the near-identical sibling jira_search_users, so an agent still cannot tell the two apart from the text alone.

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?

Explicitly states the use case: resolve the Jira USER KEY required by owner/executedBy/assignedTo, and warns those fields reject usernames and e-mails. That is strong when-to-use context, but it names no alternative (jira_search_users, jira_get_user, jira_get_current_user, jira_search_assignable) so there is no when-not guidance.

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