search_issues_tool

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that matching occurs against title and description and that results include status, priority, and assignee, which is useful. However, it does not mention case sensitivity, pagination, sorting, or potential limitations, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load the key action and provide matching scope and return fields. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or padding.

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 simple one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what it searches, what it matches, and what it returns. It does not cover advanced aspects like result limits or ordering, but those are not critical for basic use.

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 schema has a single 'query' parameter with no description, but the tool description explains that the query is a keyword matched against title and description. This significantly clarifies the parameter's meaning, compensating well for the 0% schema coverage.

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 tool searches for issues by keyword, specifying that it matches against title and description. This distinctively separates it from sibling tools like get_my_issues or get_blockers, which focus on specific views rather than text search.

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 when a keyword-based search is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives. It lacks exclusions or guidance about scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate, so usage context is only implicitly addressed.

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