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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context about the search scope and return fields. However, it does not disclose behavior such as rate limits, pagination, or how results are ordered by default beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, and includes only essential information: purpose, sort capability, return fields, and intended use case.

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 tool's simplicity, the description covers what it does, why you'd use it, and what it returns. The schema covers parameter details, and annotations handle safety. Minor gap: no explicit mention of default sorting or result limits, but these are in the schema.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to compensate. It adds no significant semantics beyond the schema, apart from general context about keywords.

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 function as searching GitHub repositories by keywords, with specific output fields, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on comparison or statistics by emphasizing its search-and-find purpose.

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 clear context on when to use this tool ('Use for finding projects, libraries, or code samples related to specific topics'), but does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions for when not to use it.

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