searchIssues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that—only the scoping to 'within one project' (already in schema) and the notion of returning summaries. No contradictions; it earns a baseline 3 because it adds little extra but doesn't need to.

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 sentences with zero fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the routing guidance is appended as a separate, clearly scoped sentence. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a 4-param tool with one required param and a low schema coverage, the description covers the core use case and routing but omits pagination semantics. However, an output schema exists, so return values are handled elsewhere. The missing param details are a minor gap given the explicit routing and annotations.

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 only 25% (only projectId is described). The description clarifies searchQuery as 'full-text query' but leaves limit and offset entirely unexplained. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate more; it only partially does, so a 2 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb ('Find'), resource ('issue summaries'), and method ('full-text query'), plus an optional scope ('within one project'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from listIssues (exact-field/saved-query/custom-field filtering) and getIssue (inspect result), so an agent can select it correctly without opening schemas.

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 gives explicit routing: use listIssues for structured filters and getIssue for details, implying searchIssues is for full-text search. It names alternatives and conditions, leaving no ambiguity about when to invoke this tool.

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