papertrail_issue_search

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that hits may include a `record` field with root-cause/decision/outcome and that issue↔PR pairs are coalesced. This adds useful behavior beyond the schema, though it omits any side effects, error conditions, or read-only guarantees.

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, front-loaded with purpose, no fluff. Efficiently conveys the key behavior and additional nuances without wasting words.

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 the tool having 7 parameters and no output schema, the description only covers general behavior and the `record` field. It omits parameter explanations (e.g., `limit`, `graph_limit`, `include_graph`, `explain`), return structure, and any usage caveats. This is insufficient for reliable agent invocation.

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 only 29% (only `include` and `worktree` have descriptions). The description itself adds no parameter meaning; it does not explain `query`, `limit`, `explain`, `graph_limit`, or `include_graph`. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 it performs full-text search across cached tracker issue and change-request titles and bodies, which is specific and differentiates from sibling tools like semantic_search (semantic) and commit_search (commits). The mention of distilled records and coalesced PR pairs further clarifies its unique scope.

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 for searching issue text but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like semantic_search or papertrail_for_symbol. No exclusions or special conditions are given, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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