Search Linear issues

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds that matching is by title, description, or identifier and that filters are supported. However, it does not disclose behavior like partial vs. exact matching, archived-issue handling, or result limits beyond the schema defaults.

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 compact sentences with no filler; the core action and search scope are front-loaded, and the filter list is summarized efficiently. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

The core search and filter capabilities are covered, but with no output schema and siblings for listing/getting issues, the agent still lacks guidance on return shape and when to choose this tool over linear_list_issues or linear_get_issue. includeArchived and limit behavior are also left to the schema defaults.

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 description maps five of the eight parameters (team, assignee, state, project, label) and clarifies that query can be text or an identifier. However, limit and includeArchived remain undocumented in both the schema and the description, and with only 38% schema coverage the description only partially compensates.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('issues'), and adds the searchable fields: title, description, or identifier. It is clearly distinct from list/get siblings by its text-search focus, but it does not explicitly name an alternative for exact-identifier retrieval, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 this tool is for finding issues by free text or identifier and for filtering by team/assignee/state/project/label, but it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance. With siblings like linear_list_issues and linear_get_issue available, the absence of routing guidance is a gap.

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