search_issues

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Search' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention rate limits, authentication, pagination behavior, or any additional caveats. It is minimal but not misleading; a 3 is appropriate given the low risk of a search operation.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the purpose and key differentiator ('GitHub search syntax') without any redundant fluff. Every word 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 tool is a simple search with a high-quality schema, output schema, and a direct description. The description is sufficient for an agent to know when to invoke it and what it does. It could benefit from a note on read-only behavior since annotations are absent, but overall it is complete for this low-complexity tool.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (query, repo, per_page). The description adds a small bit of context by mentioning 'GitHub search syntax', which relates to the query parameter, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's existing examples and descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: searching issues and pull requests, and explicitly mentions 'GitHub search syntax' which differentiates it from sibling tools like list_issues and get_issue that likely don't support search qualifiers. The verb 'search' is specific to the resource.

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: use when you need to search with GitHub search syntax. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_issues or search_repositories, nor does it provide guidance on when not to use this tool. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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