Search Jira issues

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

With no annotations, the description does real work by declaring 'Read-only' and listing the required JIRA_BASE_URL, JIRA_EMAIL and JIRA_API_TOKEN environment variables. However it says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or the behavior when all four optional parameters are omitted, which an agent needs to invoke safely.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the query-construction rule, then the safety/auth note. No filler; the only minor compression cost is that 'combined with AND' is terse enough to be slightly ambiguous.

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?

Four parameters with zero required fields, no annotations and no output schema means the description should carry most of the burden. It covers query construction and auth prerequisites but leaves maxResults, defaults, and the zero-argument case unexplained, so an agent could still call it incorrectly.

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, and it does explain jql, projectKey and text and their AND combination. It omits maxResults entirely (no mention of paging or the 1-100 range) and does not clarify mutual exclusivity versus precedence between jql and the structured filters.

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 issues'), which is immediately distinguishable from the tempo_* worklog siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative or exclusion, but the domain difference is obvious from the name and title.

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?

'Provide either a jql string, or projectKey and/or text (combined with AND)' gives a concrete rule for how to drive the tool and implies the two query modes are alternatives. It stops short of stating precedence when both jql and projectKey are supplied, or what happens when no argument is given.

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