search_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool searches issues; it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or that the search API may return both issues and pull requests. The read-only nature is implied by 'Search' but not explicitly disclosed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words, making it concise and easy to parse. However, it is somewhat under-specified; a bit more context about search scope or result behavior would improve completeness without sacrificing conciseness.

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 there are no annotations, no output schema, and five parameters with mostly undocumented semantics, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, or the meaning of sort/order options, making it incomplete for a search 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 only 20% (only 'query' has a description), and the description adds no parameter details. The optional parameters page, per_page, sort, and order are left unexplained, and the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 ('Search') and explicit resource ('issues across GitHub repositories'), which clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_issues or search_repositories. It could be stronger by noting that search results may include pull requests or by mentioning global search scope, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_issues or search_repositories. The phrase 'across GitHub repositories' implies global search, but it does not explain exclusions, prerequisites, or when a different tool would be more appropriate.

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