gh_search_issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it supports all GitHub search qualifiers, which is useful but not deeply behavioral. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or result format, but with strong annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a concrete example of qualifiers. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 (4 params, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the key usage pattern (search qualifiers) and distinguishes issues vs PRs. It could mention pagination or result limits, but the output schema likely covers return structure, so a 4 is fair.

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 explains the 'query' parameter implicitly by mentioning qualifiers, but does not explain 'sort', 'order', or 'per_page' beyond their schema defaults. The description adds some value for 'query' but leaves the other parameters to schema defaults, which is a gap given 0% coverage.

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 issues and pull requests, with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('GitHub issues and pull requests'). It distinguishes from siblings like gh_list_issues (which likely lists without search qualifiers) and gh_search_repos/gh_search_code by focusing on issues/PRs.

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 usage context: it supports all GitHub search qualifiers and explicitly mentions 'is:pr' and 'is:issue' for filtering. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gh_list_issues or gh_search_repos, though the qualifier examples imply the distinction.

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