find_issues

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds a real behavioral constraint not encoded anywhere else: exactly one search parameter is permitted (the schema does not enforce a oneOf). It omits what happens on violation and says nothing about the scroll workflow.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the one-per-call constraint and its enumeration. Dense but no filler; the example query is useful. Slightly run-on as a single block.

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 15-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the search surface and basic pagination but ignores the entire scroll mechanism (scrollId, perScroll, scrollType, scrollTTLMillis) and response-shaping params (expand, fields). Since the schema documents all of these, the gap is tolerable but noticeable for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by grouping the search parameters and clarifying their mutual exclusivity, plus a sample query string, but leaves the scroll, expand, fields, and order parameters entirely to 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Find issues in Yandex Tracker'. It is clearly distinguishable from count_issues or get_issue by naming the search intent, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.

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 the operative rule: 'Pass exactly ONE search parameter', then enumerates the mutually exclusive options (queue, keys, filter, query, query2, filterId). This is clear invocation guidance. It does not, however, name alternatives like count_issues or search_entities or state when to prefer them.

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