find_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and does well: it explains that it searches GitHub, factors the scoring (repo health, freshness, clarity, merge friendliness, setup ease), and describes the default behavior of unassigned_only. It does not mention rate limits or API auth, but for a search tool this is sufficient detail.

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 well-structured with a concise summary paragraph followed by a clean Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the formatting makes the tool immediately scannable. No wasted words.

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 description covers all 8 parameters, the ranking logic, the search source, and an edge-case behavior (unassigned_only=False to widen searches). It does not document the return format, but an output schema exists, so that burden is satisfied elsewhere. For a tool of this complexity, this is fully complete.

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%, so the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter semantics: defaults, allowed values for sort_by, example values for language and topic, and a behavioral note for unassigned_only. This is exemplary parameter documentation.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Find beginner-friendly open source issues ranked by likelihood of success.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings (check_repo_health, check_issue_status, get_contribution_guide) by focusing on searching and ranking issues rather than checking individual repos or issue status.

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 makes the primary use case obvious (finding beginner-friendly issues) and gives contextual advice, such as setting unassigned_only=False to widen searches when narrow combinations return zero hits. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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