search_issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: pagination semantics (opaque token, null on last page), the fact that fields replaces the default field set entirely, and that fields=[] returns only the issue key. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to know.

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 sentences, each dense with useful information. The most important facts (search with JQL, pagination token) are front-loaded, and the fields behavior is explained precisely. No filler or repetition of schema defaults that are already visible.

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 description is complete for a read-only search tool: it covers pagination, limits, field selection, and the output schema exists to explain return values. It doesn't mention error cases (e.g., invalid JQL) or rate limits, but those are minor for a read-only, idempotent operation. The output schema covers return structure, so the description doesn't need to.

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. It does: it explains the meaning of jql (Jira query language), the valid range and default for limit, the replacement semantics of fields, and the pagination contract for page_token. It doesn't give JQL syntax examples, but the core semantics of all four parameters are covered, which is strong compensation for zero schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('Jira Cloud issues'), and the query mechanism ('with JQL'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_issue (single issue retrieval) and get_comments (comments), so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 gives clear operational context: it explains pagination via next_page_token/page_token, the valid range for limit, and how fields behaves. It doesn't explicitly say 'use this instead of get_issue when you need to search by JQL', but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing, but the context is strong.

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