search_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function without mentioning return format, pagination, whether it performs a read-only operation, or any permissions or limitations. For a search tool, this lacks essential behavioral context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extra words. It states exactly the main action and methods, maintaining high conciseness and clear structure.

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?

With no output schema and only two parameters, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of issues), scope, or behavior when no parameters are provided. An agent would have incomplete context to fully expect the tool's behavior and limitations.

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 100%, so parameters are already described. The description adds the phrase 'text query or JQL', which clarifies the two modes but does not add details like whether both can be used together or any priority. This provides marginal value beyond the schema, aligning with the baseline for full schema coverage.

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' and the resource 'issues', with specific methods (text query or JQL). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_issue by indicating a search operation rather than a single issue retrieval.

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 implies usage when you need to search for issues, but it does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives such as get_issue, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions like 'use only if you have a query'. Guidance is implied, not explicit.

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