search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, aligning with the description's read operation ('Search... Returns'). The description adds context about beginner-friendly filtering and configuration, but lacks details on return format, pagination, or behavior when no results are found.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two clear, front-loaded sentences. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or irrelevant details.

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?

Despite simplicity, the description lacks output format details (no output schema provided) and does not clarify how 'configured languages and interests' are set, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand the full context.

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 single parameter 'maxResults' is fully documented in the input schema with a description and default value. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, and the baseline of 3 applies due to high schema coverage (100%).

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 searches GitHub for beginner-friendly open-source issues, specifying the verb ('Search') and resource ('GitHub issues') with a clear qualifier ('beginner-friendly'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools, which are action-oriented (claim, dismiss, move) rather than search-oriented.

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 when the goal is to find beginner-friendly issues matching configured languages and interests, but it does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool, nor does it mention alternatives among siblings.

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