jira_search_stories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does state that the tool 'Returns matching issues with full details', which is useful, but it doesn't mention whether the operation is read-only, whether it enforces issue type 'Story', how pagination works (beyond schema defaults), or what 'full details' includes. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 two sentences: a clear statement of purpose and an example JQL. It is concise, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, and contains no filler. Every sentence earns its place; the example is directly actionable.

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 tool has a moderate complexity (pagination, required jql) and no output schema, so the description should clarify return values. It states 'Returns matching issues with full details', which gives a general idea but not the structure. Combined with the rich schema descriptions and the example, an agent has sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly, though a clearer definition of 'full details' would improve completeness.

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%: all three parameters (jql, startAt, maxResults) have detailed descriptions with examples, defaults, and constraints. The tool description adds an example JQL, but it largely duplicates examples already in the schema. Since the schema already provides complete parameter semantics, the description's added value is marginal, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 function: 'Search Jira stories using JQL (Jira Query Language)'. It specifies the verb (search), resource (Jira stories), and method (JQL), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_get_story (which fetches a single story) and jira_update_story_status. The example JQL further reinforces the intended use.

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 clear context on how to use the tool (by constructing a JQL query) and gives a concrete example. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., 'use this when you need to search by criteria rather than fetching a specific story'). This is a minor gap, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to choose it appropriately.

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