search_issues

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 discloses key behavioral traits: it performs a search (implying read-only, non-destructive), specifies the search field (subject), and mentions pagination. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or the exact format of paginated results.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the tool's function and key behavior (paginated results). Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a search tool. It covers the basic operation and pagination but omits details like result format, error cases, or authentication needs. For a tool with 3 parameters and 100% schema coverage, it's adequate but could be more informative about behavioral aspects.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters (query, limit, offset). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it implies 'query' is for keyword matching in subjects but doesn't explain syntax or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most of the documentation.

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 purpose: 'Search for Redmine issues/tickets by keyword in the subject field.' It specifies the verb (search), resource (issues/tickets), and scope (subject field). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_issues' or 'get_issue', which likely retrieve issues without searching.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_issues' (which might list all issues) or 'get_issue' (which retrieves a specific issue by ID), leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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