search_issues

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the search behavior (matches title, description, comments) and output fields. It implicitly indicates a read-only operation, though it does not explicitly state it is not destructive. No contradictions exist.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, search scope, and output alignment with a sibling tool. It lacks details on pagination, ordering, or error handling, but given the simple parameter set and no output schema, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the query parameter matches title, description, and comments, and by listing the return fields not specified in the schema. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 ('issues'), and explicitly states what fields are matched (title, description, comments) and what is returned (identifier, title, state, URL). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like get_issue and list_issues_in_cycle by specifying search behavior and output alignment.

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 clearly states when to use the tool (to search issues by text) and provides context about result shape alignment with list_issues_in_cycle, enabling interchangeable use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives for non-search tasks.

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