sonarqube_issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results default to unresolved issues, but that fact is already in the statuses parameter description, and nothing is said about result volume, ordering, or cross-branch default behavior.

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 the core purpose stated first. It is not bloated, though the trailing field list is the weakest, least accurate part of the sentence.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should hint at what comes back; the field list serves that role loosely but is ambiguous about whether those are returned fields or filters. With 8 parameters and no mention of branch/PR scoping or result limits, the definition is adequate but incomplete for an agent picking the right scope on a first call.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description names fields (file, line, rule, message, author, creation date) that are NOT parameters, which can mislead an agent into expecting filters that do not exist. Meanwhile real parameters (branch, pullRequest, newCode, limit) go unmentioned, so the sentence adds noise rather than meaning.

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?

Uses a specific verb (search) and resource (a project's unresolved issues) and enumerates the fields of interest, so an agent knows what it retrieves. It does not name or contrast with siblings, but the siblings cover clearly different resources (branches, projects, measures, quality gate), so confusion risk is low.

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?

No statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. needing a project key), and no guidance on combining with sonarqube_issue_source for drill-down. Usage is only implied by the word 'search'.

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