search_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and uses it well by disclosing that the result is a curated, LLM-shaped list with specific fields and a suggested next action, and by explicitly noting it is 'Not a raw REST dump.' It does not mention auth, rate limits, or default behavior, but the disclosed output behavior is unusually informative for a search tool.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: the verb-resource statement, the output-shape disclosure, the anti-REST-dump differentiator, and the scoping tip. Information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the suggested next action, which is essential for an agent deciding whether the tool's output is adequate. Combined with the fully described input schema, this is close to complete; only minor details like result ordering or default state are absent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds only mild reinforcement for the repo parameter ('Scope with repo=owner/name when you know it') and does not elaborate on query/limit/state beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search GitHub issues') and describes the distinctive LLM-shaped return format, making the tool's core function clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings summarize_issue and draft_comment, but the search verb and output description are enough to separate it from those actions.

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?

Offers practical scoping guidance ('Scope with repo=owner/name when you know it'), which implies how to narrow a search. It does not state when to choose search_issues over summarize_issue or draft_comment, nor does it give exclusions, leaving the choice between siblings implied rather than explicit.

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