search_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the search is scoped to one repository and that it follows GitHub search syntax, which are useful behavioral constraints. It does not mention result limits, pagination, or whether the search is read-only, though 'Search' strongly implies non-mutating behavior.

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 a single sentence with no filler: it leads with the action and resource, adds the key scoping and syntax detail in parentheses, and closes with the purpose. Every word contributes.

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 three-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential what, where, and intended use, and the GitHub search syntax note is the non-obvious detail an agent needs. It is slightly incomplete only in not mentioning limitations like pagination or explicitly stating that it returns a list of matches, but the output schema mitigates the return-value gap.

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 for the bare parameter names. It offers a hint that owner/repo scope the search and that query uses GitHub search syntax, but it never explicitly documents any parameter, expected format, or examples. This leaves significant inference to the agent.

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 states a clear verb ('Search'), resource ('issues/PRs'), and scope ('in one repository'), plus the intended purpose of finding related or duplicate reports. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_issue and get_pull_request, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 phrase 'to find related or duplicate reports' implies the use case, and 'Search issues/PRs in one repository' indicates discovery rather than retrieval of a known item. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over get_issue or get_pull_request, nor gives any exclusion criteria.

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