search_issues_full

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read operation (search) and specifies the scope of search (subject, description, comments) and return format (description and all comments). However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling, which are important for a search tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter details in a structured format. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second clarifies search scope, and the parameter explanations are necessary for understanding defaults. No wasted 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameters well. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to explain return values in detail, but could benefit from more behavioral context like error cases or performance notes.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for all three parameters: 'query' as the search keyword, 'project_id' for filtering by project (with default behavior), and 'limit' for maximum results (with default behavior). This goes beyond the schema's basic titles, providing practical usage context.

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 specific action ('Full-text search for issues by keyword') and resource ('issues'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_issues' by specifying it searches across subject, description, and all comments. It explicitly mentions what it returns ('Returns results with description and all comments'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Full-text search for issues by keyword') and implies alternatives by specifying what it searches across, but does not explicitly name when-not-to-use cases or direct alternatives like 'list_issues'. It gives practical guidance on optional parameters, aiding usage decisions.

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