search_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Search for issues using query text', omitting details like search scope, case sensitivity, supported operators, or result limits. For a search tool, more transparency is needed.

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?

Single sentence, no extraneous or redundant information. Every word contributes to the purpose. Ideal conciseness for a one-line tool.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description does not explain what the search returns (e.g., list of issues, fields included) or any pagination/sorting behavior. Contrast with sibling list_issues tool: unclear how this differs. Missing essential context for a search tool.

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% (both parameters documented in schema). The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'using query text'. With full schema coverage, baseline is 3; the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 action ('Search for issues') and the resource ('issues'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_issue (retrieve single) and create_issue (create new), but could be more specific about what 'query text' entails (e.g., full-text search vs. JQL).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_issues or get_issue. No context on when not to use it or prerequisites (e.g., required permissions). The description is too minimal to provide useful usage directions.

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