search_github_issues

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It states it uses GitHub Issues API but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, read-only nature, or pagination behavior.

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?

Description is well-structured with sections for purpose, API, suitability, args, and returns, but contains slightly redundant phrasing (e.g., repeating 'Search for issues and PRs').

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?

Returns a specific SearchResponse structure with fields, partially covering the absence of output schema. However, missing details on error handling or rate limits for a search tool.

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?

Both parameters are clearly explained with examples (query search syntax) and constraints (max_results 1-100), fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions (0% 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 it searches GitHub issues and PRs, and differentiates from sibling tools like search_github (general) and search_github_code.

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?

It mentions suitability for monitoring bugs, discussions, and feature requests, implying use for issue/PR related queries, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives.

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