search_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it offers only the adjective 'advanced' and the target resource. It fails to mention result format, pagination, rate limits, authentication, or any side effects. This is essentially a restatement of the tool's name.

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 concise at one sentence, but it is under-specified. While brevity is a positive, the sentence provides only a generic purpose and lacks the substantive details needed for a search tool with five parameters and no annotations.

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 tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It explains neither the return value nor advanced query capabilities despite promising 'advanced' search. The schema partially helps, but the overall contextual picture is insufficient for an agent to invoke this tool confidently.

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?

The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Schema description coverage is 60%, leaving page and per_page without descriptions; the tool description does not compensate for this gap. The query example in the schema is the only useful parameter context, and it comes from the schema, not the description.

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 states the tool performs advanced search for issues and pull requests on GitHub, a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling search tools targeting repositories, code, or users, though it does not explicitly contrast with list_issues or list_pull_requests.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_issues or search_repositories. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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