Search Issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds useful context about the dual search/filtering approach and the optional nature of text search, but doesn't provide additional behavioral details like pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond what the schema already covers.

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 perfectly concise - two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence establishes the core purpose, while the second provides crucial usage guidance about the searchTerm parameter. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 comprehensive annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides adequate context. It explains the core functionality and key parameter relationships. However, without an output schema, some additional guidance about return format or result structure would be helpful, though not strictly required given the tool's relatively straightforward purpose.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by emphasizing the relationship between searchTerm and other filters, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation 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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Search for issues') and the resources involved ('with text search and/or structured filtering'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_issues' by emphasizing search capabilities and from 'search_gitlab' by focusing specifically on issues.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('Search for issues with text search and/or structured filtering') and includes specific guidance about parameter usage ('leave searchTerm empty' for filtering-only scenarios). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools for different scenarios.

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