Suggest Tracker issues by title

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety and idempotence are covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: results are scoped to *visible* issues (a permission boundary) and matching is substring-on-summary rather than fuzzy or full-text. It omits any mention of result caps or truncation, which keeps it from a 5.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the core mechanism is front-loaded before the alternative-tool routing. Every clause 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?

For a simple read-only suggestion tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, matching semantics, visibility scope, and the sibling alternative. The only real gap is the shape of the reply (e.g. how many suggestions, whether truncated), which the missing output schema leaves unspecified.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the schema, including how ``full``, ``fields``, ``expand``, and ``embed`` interact. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 mechanism (typeahead) over a specific resource (visible issues) with the matching rule spelled out: summaries containing ``text``. It also names the sibling it is not (issues_search), so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly frames this as a lightweight title match and routes full querying to ``issues_search``. The when-to-use (quick autocomplete-style lookup) and the alternative are both stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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