search_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses almost nothing: no note that all parameters are optional (so an unfiltered call returns a broad result set), no pagination/limit behavior, no permission or scope requirements. "Returns matching issues" is the only behavioral claim and it is essentially tautological.

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?

Two short sentences with the capability front-loaded. The second sentence adds little value over the first, but there is no filler or padding overall.

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?

For a 6-parameter search with no annotations and no output schema, the parameter layer is fully covered by the schema, but the description should say more about result shape, ordering, and default behavior when no filters are supplied. It is adequate but incomplete.

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 defaults, limits, status values, and the 'me' assignee token. The description names four of the six fields (subject, project, status, assignee) but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb ("Search") and resource ("Redmine issues") plus the searchable dimensions, so the agent can tell it apart from get_issue or create_issue. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling or contrast with get_issue for a known ID, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_issue (fetch a known issue) or the list_* tools, and no mention of what happens when all filters are omitted. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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