search_issues

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the required is:issue/is:pr token constraint, the unsupported qualifiers, the limit cap of 100, and the return shape (total_count vs items). It does not state read-only/no-side-effect behavior or rate limits, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then parameters are described in a compact per-field layout. The query examples are numerous but each illustrates a distinct supported qualifier, so the length is mostly earned.

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?

For a 3-param search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies query syntax, constraints, limits, and even the return structure (total_count, items). An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 0%, yet the description documents all three parameters: repo format ('owner/nombre'), the full query syntax with examples, and limit ('máximo de resultados, tope 100'). It fully compensates for the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Busca') and resource ('issues y pull requests de un repo') plus the mechanism (sintaxis de búsqueda de GitHub). It is inherently distinguishable from the sibling get_issue, which fetches a single item, while this searches many.

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?

Gives concrete query examples and explicit exclusions (no repo:/org:/user:, no OR/AND/NOT, no parentheses — run one search per query). It does not explicitly compare against get_issue, but the constraints on how to use it are unusually thorough.

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