jira_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the shape of the response (a list of issues with status, assignee, priority, description). However, it says nothing about permission requirements, result ceilings, sorting, or what happens when no issues match, which are meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 sentences, zero filler: the action and its input mechanism come first, and the return contents are summarized second. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by summarizing the returned fields, and the JQL syntax itself is covered by the schema example. The main gap is the absence of usage/routing guidance, which is a description-level concern rather than a structural one.

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 jql, limit, and startAt are already fully documented with examples and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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) and resource (Jira issues) plus the mechanism (JQL query string), and the promise of a 'list of matching issues' implicitly distinguishes it from the single-issue sibling jira_get_issue. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it does not reach the top score.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance: nothing explains when to prefer jira_search over jira_get_issue, or how to page through results. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Search'.

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