search_issues

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It mentions the backend (Linear's searchIssues) and returns (standard issue shape plus totalCount). However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or whether it searches across all accessible issues, leaving gaps.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second adds technical and return info. Extremely concise with 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?

Output schema exists, so return details are partly covered. However, the description lacks guidance on pagination (after, first) and workspace filtering, which are important for a search tool. The complexity of search requires more completeness.

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 should compensate. It only implies the 'query' parameter via 'full-text search' but provides no explanation for 'after', 'first', or 'workspace'. This adds minimal value beyond the 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?

The description clearly states it performs full-text search across issues in the workspace, using the verb 'search' and specifying the resource 'issues'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_issues' which likely lists all issues without free-text search.

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 implies usage for free-text searching, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to alternatives like 'list_issues' or 'get_issue'. No exclusions or context are given.

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