search_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It fails to mention that the tool requires a prior audit result (the 'results' parameter) and does not explain behavior for missing or invalid inputs. The case-sensitive mention is trivial.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the main purpose. However, it lacks completeness (missing fields) and could be clearer without increasing length significantly.

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?

Given the complexity (4 params, nested required object, no output schema) and 21 sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the dependency on a prior audit result or how search works across multiple fields, leaving critical gaps for correct invocation.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by repeating case sensitivity and partially listing fields, but it does not clarify the required 'results' object beyond the schema. No undocumented parameters are explained.

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 states 'Search issues by text content, selector, XPath, or description', which identifies the verb and resource. However, it omits other searchable fields like 'element', 'ruleId', 'userImpact', and 'fix' that exist in the schema's fields parameter, making the description incomplete and potentially misleading.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like filter_issues or other search alternatives. It only mentions case sensitivity support, which is a feature, not usage context or prerequisites.

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