search_issues

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only restates the purpose. It fails to mention authentication requirements, rate limits, result sorting, or that it searches all accessible repositories rather than a specific one.

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 redundant wording. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity, so it does not fully earn its place despite being concise.

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?

Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the tool description is highly incomplete. It lacks context on use cases, search semantics, return values, and interaction with sibling search tools.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the query or per_page parameters. There is no information about query syntax, accepted formats, or how per_page affects results.

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 'Search issues and pull requests across repositories' specifies a clear action (search), a distinct resource (issues and pull requests), and a scope (across repositories). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_issues (repo-scoped) and search_code (code search).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or comparative scenarios with siblings like list_issues or search_code.

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