Github Search Issues Prs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it clarifies that the tool accepts any GitHub search qualifier and that closed/merged items are reachable, which is important for setting agent expectations. It doesn't mention pagination or rate limits, but the output schema and annotations cover the core behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and scope, the second sentence differentiates from the sibling, and the third gives a workflow pointer. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 search tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers the key differentiator (caller's query, closed/merged reachable) and points to a skill for workflow conventions. It doesn't describe the return format, but the output schema exists, so that's not required. A small gap is not mentioning pagination behavior, but that's minor given the schema has page/per_page parameters.

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 67%: the query parameter has a helpful example ('rate limit repo:owner/name is:closed label:bug'), and per_page has a range description. The description itself doesn't add much parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, but the schema is adequate. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Searches') and resource ('issues and pull requests'), and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling github_list_open_issues_prs by noting the query is the caller's, so closed and merged items are reachable. This is a clear, specific purpose that an agent can act on.

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 explicitly names the alternative tool (github_list_open_issues_prs) and explains the key difference: this tool uses the caller's query and can reach closed/merged items, while the sibling presumably lists only open items. It also directs the agent to github_get_skill('issue-management') for workflow conventions, which is concrete usage guidance.

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