papertrail_issue_search

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results may include a `record` field for threads with distilled decisions and that issue↔PR pairs are coalesced. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, has rate limits, or what 'cached' implies for freshness.

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 brief (two sentences) and front-loads the main purpose. However, the second sentence is dense and may be hard to parse, slightly reducing clarity.

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?

With no output schema and low param coverage, the description should explain the return structure and parameter behaviors. It only partially describes the output (record, coalesced pairs) and ignores most parameters, leaving significant gaps for a 7-param 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 description coverage is only 29%, and the tool description adds no parameter-level information. It does not explain parameters like limit, explain, include, worktree, graph_limit, or include_graph, leaving the agent to rely on the sparse schema descriptions or defaults.

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 performs full-text search across cached tracker issue and change-request titles and bodies, and mentions special behaviors like decision records and coalesced issue↔PR pairs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like semantic_search, but does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not specify exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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