search_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool searches issues and adds a nuance about local field prefixing, but it doesn't elaborate on read-only safety, pagination behavior, or how query and keys interact. This is adequate but minimal context.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, the first stating the core purpose and the second a useful tip. No filler or repetition; it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 8 well-documented parameters and an output schema, so the description mainly needs to add behavioral context. It provides a valuable tip about query syntax, leaving only minor gaps such as not mentioning alternatives or clarifying the relationship between keys and query. Overall, it is complete enough for informed invocation.

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 already provides clear descriptions for all 8 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds extra semantic value by explaining how to search by local fields with a queue key prefix, which enriches the query parameter meaning beyond the schema example.

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 identifies the action (search) and resource (issues), and mentions both query language and filters. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from similar tools like count_issues or search_entities, but the scope is evident and the tip adds precision.

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 implies usage for searching issues and provides a helpful tip for local field queries, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like count_issues, search_entities, or get_issue, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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