github_search_issues

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

The description discloses query behavior, supported qualifiers, and parameter defaults, but with no annotations it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether authentication/session setup is required, or how results are limited/paginated. The session_name and max_results params hint at these aspects, but rate limits and return format are not mentioned.

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 appropriately sized, starts with a clear one-sentence purpose, and uses a tidy Args list. It is efficient and well-structured, with every line contributing value.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description covers the query syntax, parameters, and scope well, but it lacks an explicit note about requiring a connected session or the API's search limitations, which slightly reduces completeness for an agent unfamiliar with GitHub sessions.

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?

With zero schema description coverage, the Args section fully compensates by explaining each parameter with purpose, examples, valid sort options, and defaults. This adds meaning far beyond the bare schema, giving the agent a clear understanding of query formulation.

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 'Search issues and pull requests across GitHub,' which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools like github_search_repos, github_search_code, and github_search_users. The qualifiers and example further cement its unique scope.

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 usage context through the supported qualifiers and an example query, indicating it is for cross-repo issue and PR searches. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over github_list_issues or github_list_prs, which are likely repo-scoped listing alternatives.

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