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

The description labels the tool as 'Read-only', which is a key safety trait. No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention other behaviors like pagination, rate limits, or error handling.

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 very concise, with two sentences that front-load the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no extraneous information.

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 description covers filtering and safety but lacks details on return format, pagination (despite a 'first' param), and error scenarios. Without an output schema, more context on results would be helpful for a search tool.

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%, so the description does not need to add much. It restates filter options and adds 'matches title' for the query parameter, which aligns with the schema's 'containsIgnoreCase'. No significant new meaning is added.

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 finds and filters issues. It uses a specific verb 'find' and lists filter criteria. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like 'linear_get_issue' for single-issue retrieval or 'linear_my_issues' for personal 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions filtering options but does not specify when to use this search tool over other issue-related tools.

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