linear_searchIssues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the search action itself, but it does not contradict the annotations. Since an output schema exists, return-format details are unnecessary here, keeping this at a baseline 3.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, which is efficient. However, for a 6-parameter search tool with ambiguous sibling relationships, the description is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — it omits useful content rather than trimming excess.

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?

With 6 parameters and an intentionally generic sibling set, this description is insufficient. It does not explain how search behaves (e.g., fuzzy vs. exact, text matching scope), how it differs from linear_getIssues, or any limits/edge cases. The annotations and output schema cover some ground, but the text itself leaves an agent without clear guidance.

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% across all 6 parameters, so the schema already documents each field (query, states, teamId, projectId, assigneeId, limit). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('issues'), which is clear at a surface level. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling linear_getIssues, which likely returns the same resource with similar filtering. The phrase 'various filters' is vague and could describe several issue-listing tools in the sibling set.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like linear_getIssues, linear_searchReleases, or linear_getIssueById. No context, exclusions, or alternative routing is provided, leaving the agent to guess which search/list tool fits its task.

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