Search Jira issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: jql is constrained by projectKey and by the strict allowlist, and pagination is disclosed via data.nextPageToken with the pass-back instruction.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then alternatives, then pagination — a sensible ordering with no filler. It is dense but every sentence carries information; the embedded JQL example is the only element that inflates length, and it 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, yet the description still covers the one output detail that matters for correct invocation (nextPageToken). Combined with the allowlist caveat, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only the terse default-query behavior under projectKey scoping is left implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema does not: jql silently gets scoped to projectKey when supplied and further narrowed under the strict allowlist. The pageToken round-trip is also explained in context rather than just as a field name.

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?

Specific verb and resource (list open Jira issues assigned to the authenticated user), with the optional project scope stated up front. An agent can tell this apart from jira_get_issue (single issue) and the confluence/delivery siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly frames the use case ("find what to work on next") and names the in-tool alternative for custom filtering via jql, including a concrete example. It does not explicitly say when to prefer jira_get_issue for a single known issue, so it stops short of a full when/when-not map.

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