github_search_issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the non-obvious operational constraint of 30 requests per minute, which materially affects how an agent should batch or repeat calls and is not derivable from the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler: purpose first, routing second, constraint last. Every sentence carries distinct information and the most decision-relevant content is front-loaded.

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 read-only, open-world search tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers what it must. The only gap is that no output schema exists and the description says nothing about result shape or total-count/pagination behavior, which is a minor omission but a real one.

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%: every parameter, including the query qualifier list, sort, order, perPage, searchType and advancedSearch, is documented inline. The description's sample query and qualifier mention duplicate the schema rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search issues and pull requests across GitHub') plus the scope qualifier (across GitHub, not a single repo). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling github_issues_list_for_repo, so an agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: use this when the repository is unknown OR the filter is richer than github_issues_list_for_repo supports. That is a concrete when-to-use condition naming the specific alternative, leaving nothing to inference.

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