jira_search_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions searching by name or email but does not disclose traits like case sensitivity, pagination, or whether it returns inactive users. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values.

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 extremely concise with no unnecessary words. It includes a clear one-line purpose and a parameter list, front-loading the key 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the search behavior. It lacks details like scope (e.g., all users or project-specific), but for a basic search, it is sufficient.

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 compensates by explaining both parameters: query (name, email, username fragment) and max_results (maximum number). This adds meaningful context beyond the basic schema types.

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 'Searches for Jira users by name or email.' It is a specific verb+resource+method, and the tool is distinct from siblings which focus on other Jira/Confluence entities.

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 a clear context for use (search for users), but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives. However, among siblings, there is no other user search tool, so the need for exclusion is minimal.

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