search_tracker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the safety-relevant trait 'Read-only', which is genuine value. However it says nothing about rate limits, result ordering, or pagination behavior, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste, front-loaded with the resource scope and ending with the safety qualifier. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 a full output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the structured fields do most of the work, so the description is minimally viable. It still leaves the agent without guidance on how this search differs from the many sibling search/list tools.

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 100%, so all five parameters (kind, repo, query, state, max_results) are already fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of open/closed/merged merely restates the state parameter and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb (search) and resource (GitHub issues and PRs) and even scopes the state coverage (open, closed, merged). It implicitly distinguishes itself from search_code/search_abstractions by naming the tracker domain, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as search_code or find_skill. An agent must infer from the resource noun alone that this is the issue/PR tracker search.

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