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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds that results are 'ranked rows,' which is useful but lacks details on ordering, pagination, or default behavior. No contradictions exist between description and annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence efficiently communicates purpose, scope, and return type with no extraneous words. Every part adds value.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and a read-only search function, the description covers the core purpose but omits details like default state ('open'), limit defaults, pagination, and result structure. For a search tool, an agent would benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., ranking criteria, max results).

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?

The description clarifies that owner+repo specify a single repo and that the query searches title/body, adding meaning beyond the schema for required parameters. However, it does not explain the limit parameter or provide format details for query/state beyond what the schema offers. With 40% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 the verb (search), resource (issues), and scope (single repo, filtered by state, by title/body keyword). It conveys the return type (ranked rows). However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling search tools such as gluecron_search_prs or gluecron_semantic_search, which reduces clarity for an agent comparing options.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention exclusions (e.g., when not to use), prerequisites, or when to prefer other issue search tools. The description only describes the tool's action without contextual usage advice.

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