Search issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it gives almost nothing. It hints at a scoping constraint ('allowlisted repository') but omits pagination, result caps, sorting, auth requirements, and whether the query uses GitHub search syntax or free text.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the tightness comes at the cost of specificity rather than being paired with adequate detail.

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 three-parameter, all-required search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, this is too thin. The undefined query syntax and the owner/repo relationship leave real gaps an agent would hit at call time.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does not. It gestures at 'repository' and 'query' but never explains the owner/repo split, the query syntax or operators, or the length and character constraints enforced by the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Searches') and resource ('issues') with a scoping constraint ('in an allowlisted repository matching a query'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from the sibling search-like tools list_issues or get_issue, so an agent must infer the 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as list_issues or get_issue. 'Matching a query' only weakly implies the search use case; nothing tells the agent when this is preferred over listing all issues.

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