search_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the search scope (title/description) and default/max limits, but doesn't cover important aspects like pagination behavior, sorting, error conditions, authentication requirements, or rate limits for a search operation.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence adds value, though the Chinese/English mix slightly affects readability. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first.

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 search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic operation and parameters adequately. However, it lacks details about the return format (what fields/issues include), search behavior (partial/full match, case sensitivity), and doesn't leverage the absence of annotations to provide more behavioral context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 3 parameters: query is the search keyword, project_id restricts to specific projects (optional), and limit controls maximum results with default and max values. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool searches for issues using keywords in title or description, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list_project_issues' or 'get_my_issues', which also retrieve issues but with different filtering approaches.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_project_issues' or 'get_my_issues'. It mentions optional project_id filtering but doesn't explain when keyword search is preferable to listing by project or status.

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