search_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It states the search scope, that it returns results per issue, and the specific fields provided, which strongly implies a read-only search operation. It does not mention pagination, sorting, or failure behavior, but these are secondary for a read-only query tool.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and scope; the second lists the return fields. Every word earns its place.

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 six optional parameters, the 100% schema coverage, and the lack of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context to call the tool correctly, especially with its list of returned fields. Minor omissions — such as explicit guidance about sibling tools or project configuration prerequisites — prevent a perfect score.

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 all six parameters (cid, limit, impact, offset, status, checker) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level semantics, but it is not required to because the schema fully covers them.

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 identifies the action ('Search'), the resource ('static analysis defects in the configured Coverity project'), and the returned fields (CID, checker, file, function, impact, status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects and get_issue_details, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 implies this tool is used when searching for static-analysis defects, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over get_issue_details or when to use alternatives. There are no stated exclusions or prerequisites, leaving usage somewhat to inference.

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