search_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. The phrase 'full-text' does hint that the search covers text content, but it omits any details about query syntax, pagination, filtering capabilities, or whether it is a read-only operation. The description adds minimal value beyond what the tool name suggests.

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 succinct and free of any wasted words, but it is under-specified. At only three words, it reads more like a label than a functional description. It is concise but does not earn its place by delivering necessary detail.

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?

The tool has only two parameters and no output schema, but the description still falls short. It does not explain what kind of 'issues' are searched (e.g., by scope), how search results are returned, or any limitations. Given the rich set of sibling issue-related tools (create_issue, update_issue, list_issues), the description provides insufficient context for an agent to understand its unique role.

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 50% (only workspace_id has a description). The description does not explain the 'q' parameter or clarify the role of workspace_id. While one might infer that 'q' is the search query, this is not explicit, and the description adds no additional parameter-level context beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool's function: 'full-text search issues.' This is a specific verb (search) and resource (issues), with 'full-text' adding a useful qualifier. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_issues' or 'get_issue,' so it doesn't fully distinguish its scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention whether it should be used instead of list_issues for keyword searches, nor does it note any limitations or prerequisites. The only hint is the word 'search,' but the usage context is entirely assumed.

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