search

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses a default limit of 20, that archived records are excluded by default, and that results are relevance ordered. These details help the agent anticipate behavior without contradicting the read-only and idempotent hints.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose ('Full-text search') and packs four key behavioral details into concise clauses. No words are wasted, and every element earns its place.

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 tool's complexity (12 parameters) and the presence of a rich schema and annotations, the description covers the core behavioral defaults (pagination, limit, archived handling, ordering) that aren't obvious from the schema alone. It does not enumerate searchable entity types, but those are documented in the schema's entity_types parameter, and the output schema covers return structure. The description is sufficient for a capable agent.

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 schema already covers all parameter descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by clarifying the default limit (20) and the default behavior for archived records, which directly relate to the limit and include_archived parameters. This helps the agent understand the actual defaults beyond the schema's '0 uses the default' phrasing.

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 opens with 'Full-text search,' a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the tool's function. It immediately distinguishes it from sibling listing tools like list_issues and get_issue by emphasizing text-based search across content. Additional details like cursor pagination and relevance ordering further sharpen the purpose.

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 implies the tool is for full-text search, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over structured list/filter tools like list_issues. There are no named alternatives or exclusions, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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