linear_search_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('search') and lists parameters, but lacks critical behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, sorting), error handling, or rate limits. For a search tool with 9 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a bullet-point list of parameters. Every sentence and bullet point earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (9 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is partially complete. It excels in parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but other gaps remain, making it adequate but with clear room for improvement.

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?

The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It provides clear, concise explanations for all 9 parameters (e.g., 'query: Text to search in title/description', 'include_archived: Include archived issues'), effectively compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions and enhancing the agent's understanding.

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 issues with flexible filtering.' This specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('issues'), and the mention of 'flexible filtering' hints at its scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'linear_get_user_issues', which might also retrieve issues, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.

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 'linear_get_user_issues' or 'linear_create_issue', nor does it specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage. This leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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