search_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by explaining that invalid names return an error listing valid options rather than an empty result, and that state resolution depends on whether a team is supplied. This helps an agent anticipate failure modes beyond what the schema shows.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides compact, example-rich parameter guidance. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or repetition, making it appropriately sized for the amount of behavioral detail it needs to convey.

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 there are no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description covers the most critical contextual ground: filter formats, name resolution, and error semantics. It does not mention pagination or alternative tools, and it could be slightly stronger on when to use search versus direct issue lookup, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need for return-value detail.

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%, so the description must compensate. It gives concrete formats and examples for team, state, and assignee, and clarifies the state-matching behavior. Query and limit get less attention, but the query's role is clear from 'full-text search' and limit is self-explanatory from 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 clearly states it performs 'Full-text search over Linear issues, with optional filters,' naming both the operation and the resource. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_issue or list_my_issues, but the full-text search semantics makes the distinction mostly inferable.

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 practical guidance for populating filters, such as team key/name formats, state resolution behavior, and using list_users for assignees. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_issue or list_my_issues, nor does it state when not to use it.

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