search_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the useful context that GitHub treats issues and PRs as a single searchable resource, but it does not mention read-only behavior, rate limits, or return format. This is partial disclosure but not comprehensive.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value: the unified resource explanation, the qualifier scoping, the concrete example, and the docs link. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool is moderately complex (search API, 5 parameters, no output schema). The description covers the most important aspect (query syntax) and points to documentation. It omits explicit mention of pagination parameters, but those are present in the schema with defaults. Overall, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 schema covers q, sort, and order with descriptions, leaving page and per_page undocumented. The description enriches q semantics with an example and reiterates the is:issue/is:pull-request qualifiers, which adds value beyond the schema, but it does not compensate for the missing parameter descriptions on page/per_page.

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 uses a specific verb 'Search' and identifies the resource as 'GitHub issues AND pull requests,' making the purpose unmistakable. It also clarifies the unified nature of these resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_issues or search_code.

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 explains that issues and PRs share a search index and instructs how to scope with is:issue or is:pull-request qualifiers, which is critical usage guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the example and qualifier instructions imply when to use this tool versus list_issues or list_pull_requests.

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