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 read-only nature is clear. The description adds the behavioral detail that the tool accepts arbitrary GitHub search qualifiers, providing more flexibility than a simple list. While it does not mention pagination quirks or response format, that is minor given the annotations and output schema.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The main purpose and differentiator are front-loaded in the first sentencewif the alternative is named in the second. Every word 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?

Given the annotations and output schema, the description covers the core usage: it targets search of any state (open/closed/merged) and accepts all GitHub qualifiers. It does not mention rate limits or that the query must be URL-encoded, but an agent with GitHub API knowledge should infer that. Overall sufficient for a search tool.

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 covers the 'query' parameter with an example, and query is requiredERSONEN. The description does not add extra semantics for 'page' or 'per_page', but schema already describes per_page (1-100) and defaults. With 67% coverage, the description's mention of qualifiers supplements the query schema, but overall the schema does most of the work.

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?

Describes a specific verb ('Searches') and resource ('issues and pull requests') with a clear scope (caller-supplied query, qualifiers). Explicitly differentiates from sibling github_list_open_issues_prs by noting that closed and merged items are reachable. Purpose is unmistakable.

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 states the key alternative (github_list_open_issues_prs) and implies why to use this tool (when you need closed/merged items or custom qualifiers). However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use it or mention potential limitations such as GitHub search API quotas or the need for exact qualifier syntax.

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