search_issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the scoping behavior; it says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or rate limits, which matter for a search endpoint returning up to 100 items per page.

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, front-loaded with what the tool does and followed by the key scoping instruction. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema and five parameters, the description should clarify return shape and pagination behavior, and it does not. It is adequate for a search-style read call but leaves gaps an agent would need to guess at.

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 60%: query and owner/repo are documented in the schema, and the description reinforces owner/repo scoping meaningfully. However, the `type` enum (issue vs pr) and `per_page` are undocumented in both places, and the description only hints at type via 'issues or pull requests' without naming the parameter or its default.

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?

Description states a specific verb (search) and resource (issues or pull requests across GitHub) plus the search-syntax basis. It implicitly distinguishes itself from list_issues/list_pull_requests by being query-driven, but never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

It gives one useful usage cue — pass owner and repo to scope to a single repository — which implies omitting them searches broadly. It does not say when to prefer this over list_issues or list_pull_requests, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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