gh_search_issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that the tool searches both issues and PRs and supports GitHub qualifiers, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not disclose rate limits, pagination behavior, or other operational details. With annotations present, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 with a clear example, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no unnecessary verbosity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered externally, and annotations handle safety. The description gives a good overview of the main query capability and examples, but it leaves sort/order/per_page undocumented and does not contrast search with list tools. Overall, it is adequate but with noticeable gaps in parameter context and usage boundaries.

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?

The input schema has 0% descriptive coverage for parameters, so the description must compensate. It does explain the query parameter format with qualifiers, but gives no guidance on sort, order, or per_page semantics. Since only one of four parameters is meaningfully described, the description only partially compensates for the schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool 'Search GitHub issues and pull requests' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gh_search_repos and gh_search_code by targeting issues/PRs, and even mentions qualifiers to refine the search.

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 explicit examples of GitHub search qualifiers and explains how to filter for pull requests ('is:pr') versus issues ('is:issue'). It gives clear context for usage but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of list tools (e.g., gh_list_issues), so it stops short of a 5.

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