boj_github_search_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Search issues and PRs') without any information about permissions required, rate limits, pagination, output format, or whether this is a read-only operation. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are structured, or any behavioral aspects like authentication or limits. For a search tool with one parameter, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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%, with one parameter 'query' undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about what the query parameter should contain (e.g., search syntax, filters, GitHub query language), failing to compensate for the schema gap. It merely implies searching without parameter details.

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 'Search issues and PRs on GitHub' clearly states the verb (search) and resource (issues and PRs on GitHub), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'boj_github_list_issues' or 'boj_github_list_prs', which appear to list rather than search, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'boj_github_list_issues' and 'boj_github_list_prs' that might serve similar listing functions, there's no indication of when search is preferred over list operations or what specific search capabilities this offers.

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