Search issues and pull requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and open-web profile is covered. The description adds the important scope fact that results span all public repos unless a repo is supplied, but says nothing about result shape, paging cost, or rate limiting for what is an unauthenticated open-web search.

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, no filler, with the scope constraint front-loaded before the use-case examples. The examples earn their place by clarifying intent rather than restating parameters.

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 10-parameter, open-world search with no output schema and no required params, the description never indicates what a result contains or how the filters interact (type default is issue, state default any). It is adequate to start a call but leaves an agent guessing about the return payload.

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 coverage is 70% and already documents query semantics, label AND-matching, the 1-100 limit and offset paging. The description only reinforces repo scoping and alludes to label filtering through the good-first-issue example, adding little beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search issues or pull requests") plus an explicit scope ("across all public repositories, or within one repo"). That scope does implicitly separate it from the per-repo siblings list_issues / list_pull_requests, but the description never names those siblings, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Gives concrete use cases — reproducing an error message others already hit, and good-first-issue hunting — which tells an agent what situations this tool serves. It stops short of exclusions (e.g. "use list_issues when you already know the repo"), so it is clear context without routing rules.

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