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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by explicitly stating that it returns a page of issues plus a cursor for the next page, helping the agent understand pagination semantics. No contradiction with 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?

Two tight sentences front-load the primary behavior and filter list, then add a one-line clarification and pagination result. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 high-complexity tool with 15 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core search semantics and the essential return behavior (page + cursor). It does not describe every filter nuance, but the schema carries that load and the defaults are visible, so an agent can call it correctly.

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 73% and most parameters already have descriptions. The description summarizes the filter dimensions but adds little meaning beyond the schema; 'A participant is an assignee or reviewer' repeats the schema's own parameter description. It does not clarify the undocumented parameters like limit, includeArchived, or includeSubIssues.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Search issues') and enumerates many meaningful filter dimensions. It goes beyond a vague purpose by describing free-text and structured filters, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_issue and list_my_issues by emphasizing broad search plus pagination.

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 makes the general use case clear: search issues across many criteria. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternative issue-listing tools or mention exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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