search_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only says 'search for issues'. It does not disclose whether search covers title, body, comments, or how pagination, rate limits, or ordering work. The state parameter from the schema is not mentioned.

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 short sentence, which is concise, but it omits critical information. It is under-specified rather than efficiently packed.

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 no output schema and 4 parameters with zero schema descriptions, the description should at least hint at return format (e.g., list of issues) or pagination. It does not, leaving the agent without enough context to use the tool confidently.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It mentions 'keywords' but does not explain the query parameter or the owner, repo, or state fields. The state enum is left undocumented.

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 verb 'search' and the resource 'issues', and mentions using 'keywords', which distinguishes it from list_issues (listing all) and get_issue_details (specific issue). However, it could be more specific about what fields are searched (e.g., title, body).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_issues or get_issue_details. There is no mention of when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisites.

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