search_issues

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

With no annotations, the description alone bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only claims 'search' (implying read-only) but does not describe matching behavior, sorting, pagination, or what fields are returned—significant 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?

One sentence, front-loaded, and free of filler. However, 'various filters' is vague, and the sentence is efficient but lacks substance, so it does not reach a perfect score.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. It omits search behavior details, return format, and relationship to sibling tools, making the tool difficult to use correctly.

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 input schema already documents all parameters. The phrase 'various filters' adds no specific parameter semantics beyond 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Linear issues') with a general indication of filters, which helps distinguish from get_ticket (single ticket) and get_my_issues (personal scope). However, it does not enumerate filter types, leaving some ambiguity.

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 guidance on when to choose search_issues over get_my_issues or get_ticket, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The implied usage is broad, but the description offers no explicit context.

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