search_issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the stricter rate limit relative to list_issues and the relevance-based result ordering. 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: core function, usage trigger, and rate-limit warning with alternative. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded and there is zero redundancy.

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 an output schema present and rich annotations covering safety, the description covers everything an agent needs: scope, ranking, when to use, and a cost/rate-limit caveat. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 each parameter (query, page, limit, state) is already fully documented in structured form. The description adds no parameter-level detail, matching the baseline-3 expectation for complete schemas.

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 and resource ('free-text search over issue titles and bodies in the configured repository') and adds the ranking behavior. It clearly differentiates from list_issues by positioning itself as relevance-based text search rather than structural filtering.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use ('Use for questions where you don't know the issue number') and when not to ('prefer list_issues when you can filter structurally'), naming the alternative tool directly. The rate-limit comparison gives the agent a concrete decision criterion.

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