search_issue_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'search' and 'returns matching events' but does not disclose if the operation is read-only, what side effects exist, required permissions, rate limits, or what happens on empty results. The description is minimal on behavioral traits beyond the core action.

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, very concise with no extraneous information. It front-loads the key action and outcome. However, it could be more structured (e.g., bullets for when to use) but given its brevity, it is efficient.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema, 2 siblings), the description provides the core purpose but lacks details about return format, pagination, error cases, or common event properties. It is adequate for a straightforward search tool but could be more informative for agents needing to handle edge cases.

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% with detailed descriptions for each parameter, especially 'query' which provides syntax, operators, and examples. The description only restates 'using a query string', adding little beyond the schema. Since the schema already documents parameters well, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it 'Search events for a specific issue using a query string. Returns matching events with their details.' It clearly identifies the action (search), the resource (events for a specific issue), and the result (matching events with details). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools 'get_issue_details' and 'get_trace_details' which focus on issue or trace details, not events.

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 gives a general purpose but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage when events are needed rather than issue details, but lacks guidance on prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or comparison with sibling tools. The schema descriptions provide some context for parameter usage but not for tool selection.

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