search_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful traits — 'Read-only' and the JIRA_MAX_SEARCH_LIMIT cap — but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or what the compact summaries contain.

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, zero filler, with the core action and the read-only/limit constraints front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers action, safety, and the result cap. The main gap is the vague 'compact summaries' and no note on pagination or result ordering.

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% and both params (jql, limit) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only echoes JQL and the limit cap without adding syntax, defaults, or interaction detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource ('Search Jira issues') plus the mechanism (JQL) and the output shape ('compact summaries'). This separates it from get_issue/get_comments in practice, but it never explicitly names or contrasts those siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement and no mention of alternatives such as get_my_open_issues or get_issue. Usage is only implied by the word 'search' — an agent must infer that this is the multi-issue query tool rather than a single-issue fetch.

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