search_issues_prs

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: closed and merged items are reachable, and any qualifier GitHub search accepts works. This goes beyond the structured safety hints.

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 with no filler: the first states the core function, the second provides the crucial differentiating detail. Everything included 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 a full input schema, an output schema, and helpful annotations, the description covers purpose, usage distinction, and behavioral scope. No critical information is missing.

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?

The schema documents query and per_page well, and the description reinforces that the query is caller-defined and accepts arbitrary GitHub qualifiers, adding useful meaning beyond the example. The page parameter is straightforward and its default is in 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Searches issues and pull requests by text and qualifiers.' It also explicitly contrasts itself with list_open_issues_prs, making the distinction from a key sibling clear.

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?

It names the alternative tool and gives the deciding factor: unlike list_open_issues_prs, this tool uses the caller's query, so closed/merged items and arbitrary GitHub qualifiers are supported. This tells an agent exactly when to choose this tool.

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