search_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'returns issue keys and titles' which describes output format, but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error handling. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps.

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 perfectly concise with just two sentences that each serve a clear purpose: the first explains what the tool does, the second provides crucial usage guidance. There's zero wasted language, and the most important information (the tool's purpose) is front-loaded.

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 search tool with 2 parameters (100% schema coverage) but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It explains the basic purpose and distinguishes from siblings, but lacks behavioral details about the search operation's scope, limitations, or output structure beyond 'issue keys and titles'. The absence of annotations and output schema means more context would be helpful.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (jql and maxResults). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions JQL generally but doesn't provide additional syntax examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('search') and resource ('Jira issues'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying it returns 'issue keys and titles' and directing users to 'get_issue for full details'. This differentiates it from other issue-related tools like get_issue, create_issue, or update_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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Use get_issue for full details' clearly indicates this tool is for searching and returning basic information, while get_issue should be used when detailed information is needed. This helps the agent choose between sibling tools appropriately.

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