search_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'supports pagination', which is useful context, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like. For a search tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 extremely concise—two sentences with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently lists key features. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter interactions, return format, error cases, or authentication needs. While concise, it fails to provide enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional guesswork.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists filter types (project, status, assignee, keyword) and mentions pagination, which maps to some parameters (e.g., 'query', 'limit', 'offset'), but doesn't explain semantics like 'project_id' vs 'project', 'status_id' values, or how 'query' interacts with other filters. This adds minimal value 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 verb ('search') and resource ('issues in Lychee Redmine'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_issue' or 'update_issue' by focusing on search functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other search-like tools (none exist in siblings), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 mentions filtering by project, status, assignee, or keyword, which implies when to use it, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_projects' or 'get_users'. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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