search_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the highlight behavior and filter applicability, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the operation is read-only. The tool is clearly a search (read), but not explicitly stated as non-destructive.

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: first states the purpose, second adds detail on highlights and filters. It is concise and front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating filter details.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description partially explains the return value (highlights when enabled) but not the default response structure or pagination details. It provides enough for basic use but leaves gaps.

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 covers all 7 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds meaningful context: filters apply to parent publication, same syntax as sibling, and the highlight parameter behavior. This goes beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 it searches across body and titles of newsletter issues, using the verb 'search' and resource 'issues'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'search_publications' by explicitly mentioning it applies to issues and referencing the sibling's filters.

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 indicates it accepts the same filters as search_publications, providing a cross-reference to a sibling tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_issues or when not to use it.

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