search_issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and external-reach profile is covered. The description adds nothing further: no mention of result ordering, pagination, whether the limit truncates silently, or how matches are ranked. Given the annotation coverage the bar is lower, but the added context is minimal.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the name. It is lean, though arguably under-written rather than tight, since the same word count could have carried one useful behavioral detail.

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 four-parameter search tool with no output schema and partial schema documentation, the definition is too thin. It leaves unanswered how many results come back by default, what happens when limit is hit, and whether state=all is meaningfully different in cost or result size.

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 coverage is only 25% (only query is documented), so the description must compensate, and it does name two of the four parameters' roles: free text maps to query and filtering to state. The repo and limit parameters remain unexplained in prose, though limit's default and maximum are visible 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search issues") plus the two dimensions used to filter ("free text and state"), so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as get_issue, but the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous on its own.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named. An agent must infer that this is for exploratory text search rather than fetching a known issue by number, which is a plausible source of selection error against get_issue.

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