search_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions pagination but does not state that the tool is read-only or describe any side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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 sentences without redundancy. Efficient and front-loaded with the primary action. Could be more concise, but adequate.

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 7 parameters with no schema descriptions and a broad set of sibling tools, the description is too terse. It lacks details on filter semantics, result ordering, or default behavior, despite the output schema reducing need for return value explanation.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the 7 parameters. Only 'cursor' is mentioned for pagination; the meaning of query, state, team_id, priority, assignee_id is left entirely to the schema names.

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 Linear issues with filters, distinguishing it from single-issue retrieval (get_issue) or project-specific lists (list_project_issues). However, it does not specify the scope or uniqueness of the 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?

Only pagination is mentioned ('Pass next_cursor as cursor for the next page'). No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_user_issues or list_cycle_issues, or when not to use it.

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