search_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a search operation using query syntax, which implies read-only behavior, but it does not disclose details like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or result-size constraints. This is adequate but not rich.

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 very concise: two sentences, with the core purpose first and the scoping advice second. Every sentence contributes useful guidance, and there is no redundant restatement of the name or schema.

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 tool with only two parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description provides enough context for correct invocation. The main gap is the absence of any mention of authentication or rate limits, but the description's core usage guidance is sufficient for a straightforward 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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with descriptions and an example, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds the important scoping recommendation but does not add parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3.

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 tool searches issues across GitHub using GitHub's query syntax, giving a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like list_issues or get_issue, so it stops 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?

The description provides clear context by advising agents to scope the search with a repo:owner/name qualifier unless the user genuinely wants global results. It gives an explicit 'unless' exclusion but does not name or discuss alternative tools such as list_issues.

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