search_issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, result limits, or error cases), but there is no contradiction with annotations.

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 compact with a clear functional statement followed by a straightforward Args list. No redundant phrases, though the Args section partially repeats schema defaults.

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 simple search tool with three parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation points. It lacks examples or deeper context about query syntax, but the parameters are self-explanatory and the annotations provide safety context.

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 provides a brief explanation for each parameter: query is a YouTrack search query, max_results has a default of 50, and instance is optional. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though details on query syntax are minimal.

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 tool's action ('Search YouTrack issues') and specifies the search mechanism ('query syntax'). It is specific enough to understand the core purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish this from similar siblings like get_issues or count_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only usage hint is about named periods for relative dates, which is a query syntax detail rather than a decision rule for tool selection.

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