search_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only restates that it searches, adds an example, and gives a caveat about unsupported qualifiers (already covered in the schema). It does not disclose any side effects, return format, pagination, rate limits, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured safety 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, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, provides a concrete example, and adds a clarifying constraint. Every word contributes to the tool's usability, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete for calling the tool correctly. It explains the purpose and gives syntax guidance, and the schema covers parameter constraints. However, it omits any mention of result limits or what a successful call returns, which could be relevant for an agent expecting a full list. This minor gap keeps it from a 5.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds a concrete example of query syntax, but that is largely redundant with the schema's own description (which already mentions label:bug and is:open and explicitly excludes repo:, org:, user:). The description does not meaningfully enrich the parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it stays at baseline.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('issues in this repository'), and includes an example of the search syntax. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_issues (which would list all issues) and create_issue/add_comment (which are actions, not searches). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 that this tool searches within the repository, and the example implies it is for finding specific issues rather than listing all. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over list_issues or other alternatives, nor does it state exclusions (e.g., 'for all issues, use list_issues'). Thus it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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