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 burden of disclosing behavior. The word 'Search' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, does not mention output or pagination behavior, and gives no indication of possible side effects or limitations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to stating the tool's core purpose, making it highly concise.

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?

Given eight parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple related sibling tools, this one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not cover when to prefer this tool, what behavioral guarantees exist, or what kind of result an agent should expect.

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 100%, so the parameter schema already documents all eight optional fields. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but per the baseline for full schema coverage, a 3 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 clearly identifies the action ('Search') and the resource ('issues in SonarCloud projects'), so an agent knows what the tool does. It does not differentiate this tool from siblings like list_projects or change_issue_status, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use search_issues versus alternatives such as change_issue_status or get_pull_requests. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context clues beyond the generic 'search' wording, so an agent has to infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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