search_issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond the structured data: results are truncated (long descriptions shortened), which tells the agent results are lossy and may require a follow-up call. It does not mention pagination behavior, though the schema covers offset/limit.

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?

A single tightly-packed sentence with zero filler, front-loading the core behavior and appending the routing hint where it is most useful.

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?

For a 13-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral caveat (truncated results) but leaves filter composition, sorting semantics, and result shape largely unexplained. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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?

With 13 parameters at 69% schema coverage, the description only alludes to 'filters' generically and adds no syntax, defaults, or meaning beyond the schema. Several parameters (parent_id, tracker_id, fixed_version_id) carry no description in either place, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States the resource (issues) and the matching behavior (filters), and explicitly contrasts itself with get_issue, so an agent can distinguish it from the full-retrieval sibling. It stops short of a clean verb such as 'search/list', and it never distinguishes itself from the generic 'search' sibling in the toolset.

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 parenthetical does give one routing rule: use get_issue when the full issue description is needed. However there is no guidance on when to use this over the sibling 'search' tool, nor on how the filter parameters should be combined, so usage is only partially implied.

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