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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description merely repeats 'Read-only' and adds a GraphQL implementation note, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, return format, or pagination beyond what the schema's 'first' parameter already implies.

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 compact and front-loads the purpose and filters, with no wasted words. The 'Read-only' sentence duplicates the annotation and the GraphQL note is not strictly necessary for invocation, but overall it remains brief and readable.

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 full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description contains enough to invoke the tool correctly for a filtered search. It lacks guidance on choosing among sibling tools and does not describe return values, but no output schema exists and the core invocation context is present.

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 the schema already documents every parameter in detail. The description restates the filter fields but adds no new semantic meaning (e.g., matching syntax, edge cases) beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 ('Find') and resource ('issues') and enumerates the filter dimensions, making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate this general search from sibling tools like linear_my_issues or linear_get_issue, leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing among them.

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?

Usage is implied by the filtering options ('optionally filtered by...'), which suggests the tool is for searching issues with optional constraints. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of when to prefer it over linear_my_issues or linear_get_issue.

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