search_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and explicitly states 'Read-only' and 'safe structured filters', which disclose the non-destructive nature. It also notes 'accessible repositories', clarifying scope. This covers the primary behavioral traits for a search tool.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and safety trait. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too minimal for a tool with 8 parameters and no annotations. It lacks guidance on parameter relationships (e.g., repo/owner interplay), max_results effects, or how 'accessible repositories' are determined. The agent may need extra probing to use it effectively.

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 must compensate for parameter meaning. It only mentions 'safe structured filters' without enumerating any of the 8 parameters (repo, owner, query, state, author, labels, assignee, max_results). This leaves the agent to infer filter semantics from param names alone.

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 identifies the action (search), the resource (GitHub issues), and the scope (across accessible repositories). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_code or get_issue by explicitly targeting issues.

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: it searches issues across accessible repositories using filters. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the resource focus is strong enough to guide selection.

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