search_issues

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. Only mentions default limit, but omits pagination, rate limits, authorization needs, or query timeout. Incomplete for a search 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?

Concise with an Args section. The first line is clear and front-loaded. Each sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

With output schema present, return values are not required in description. However, missing usage guidelines and behavioral transparency make the description incomplete for a tool with moderate complexity (2 params, search operation).

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%, but the description adds meaning: jql has an example ('project = PROJ AND status = "In Progress"') and limit specifies 'Maximum number of issues to return (default 50)'. Compensates well.

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 'Search issues with a JQL query', specifying the verb (search), resource (issues), and method (JQL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_issue' (single issue by ID) and 'search_users'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_issue for single issue retrieval). Usage is implied but no when-not-to-use or exclusions provided.

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