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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds value with the one behavioral fact annotations cannot carry — that results come back ranked — but says nothing about ranking criteria, pagination, or default result volume beyond the schema's undocumented limit.

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, no filler, with the operation and scope front-loaded and the return shape appended. 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?

For a read-only, five-parameter search tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description supplies scope, filter, match fields and result ordering. The remaining gap is limit behavior and ranking criteria, which is minor but not zero given 40% schema coverage.

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 40%, so the description has real compensating work to do. It covers the repo scope ('single repo'), the query semantics ('title/body keyword') and the state filter, but leaves limit entirely unaddressed — no default, no cap, no interaction with 'ranked rows'.

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 issues') plus scope qualifiers: title/body keyword, single repo, state filter, ranked rows. This is enough to separate it from siblings such as merjax_repo_list_issues (enumeration) or merjax_search_code, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Implied usage is clear — use when you have a keyword and want matching issues in one repo — and the 'filtered by state' clause narrows intent. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing between this and merjax_repo_list_issues and merjax_semantic_search, which an agent could realistically confuse it with.

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