github_search_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention return format, pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it uses the GitHub Search API. The label inconsistency also undermines transparency about expected inputs.

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 concise sentence, making it easy to parse. However, the phrase 'by query, state, and label' is not accurate given the schema, so the sentence does not fully earn its place due to potential misinterpretation.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values and parameters. It does not mention response structure, pagination, or the meaning of 'limit'. The description is too minimal to fully guide an agent in using this tool.

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 provides descriptions for repo and query, with 50% coverage, but the description adds little beyond that. It mentions 'state' and 'label' but does not explain state values or handle the missing label parameter. The 'limit' parameter is entirely unexplained in both schema and description, so the description fails to compensate for low schema coverage.

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 the tool searches issues in a GitHub repository, with a specific verb (search) and resource (issues). It distinguishes from sibling tools like github_get_pull_requests by focusing on issues. However, the mention of 'label' as a filter is misleading because the schema does not have a label parameter; this could confuse the agent.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit contexts, exclusions, or sibling tool comparisons are provided. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer its appropriate usage.

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