search_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose search syntax, pagination behavior, default sort/order, or whether results are limited to a specific repository. The parameter names (sort, order, per_page, page) hint at behavior but are undocumented.

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 extremely concise (5 words) but at the expense of essential information. It lacks structure and does not front-load key details like search scope or syntax.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, 5 parameters all lacking descriptions, and a one-sentence description, the tool definition is severely incomplete. The agent cannot determine how to construct a valid search query or interpret results.

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%, and the description adds no parameter explanations. The agent must infer the meaning of 'query', 'sort', 'order', 'per_page', and 'page' from parameter names alone, which is insufficient for correct usage.

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 'Search issues and pull requests' clearly states the action (search) and resource (issues and pull requests). However, it lacks scope (e.g., global search vs. within a repository) to distinguish it from sibling tools like list_issues or search_code.

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 this tool versus sibling tools like list_issues (for listing within a repo), get_issue (for a single issue), or search_repositories/search_code. No context on prerequisites or alternatives.

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