search_issues

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

The term 'Search' suggests a read-only operation, and no destructive behavior is indicated. However, without annotations or additional detail, the agent is not told whether results are ordered, paginated, filtered by default, or limited in any other way.

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, direct sentence with no redundant content. It front-loads the action and resource, then lists the search dimensions clearly.

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 tool with five parameters and no parameter descriptions or annotations, the one-sentence description leaves significant gaps. It does not explain possible field values, output shape, default behavior, or common usage context beyond the bare search action.

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 no descriptions or enums for any of the five optional parameters. The description names kind, status, and severity as filters, but does not explain accepted formats, how 'query' maps to text search, or how 'limit' behaves. The agent must guess at parameter semantics.

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 verb 'Search', the resource 'incident issues', and the main criteria: text, kind, status, or severity. It is specific enough to distinguish this tool from siblings like get_issue, issue_stats, and create_issue.

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 identifies the general purpose and searchable fields, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer search_issues over get_issue or issue_stats, nor does it mention narrowing criteria or edge cases. Some inference is required.

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