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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds substantial context: it guarantees the tool never returns the GitHub token, and it discloses the two failure/edge-case responses (connected:false and needs_install). This provides valuable behavioral transparency beyond the annotations.

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 compact yet information-dense: purpose is front-loaded, followed by return fields, the next step, edge cases, and a security note. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it returns, how to proceed, error cases, and a security guarantee. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly and interpret the response.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description does not repeat schema info but instead focuses on output fields (full_name, default_branch, private flag) and behaviors. Given the baseline for zero parameters is 4, this is appropriate.

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 verb (list), resource (the caller's own GitHub repos), and the intended purpose (to pick one to import). It also differentiates from siblings like findagent_connect_github and findagent_import_repo by explicitly mentioning the import flow.

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?

It explicitly says to pass the chosen full_name to findagent_import_repo, establishing the workflow. It also provides guidance for edge cases: if GitHub is not connected, it points to findagent_connect_github; if no repos are granted, it mentions needs_install with an install URL. This helps the agent decide when to use this tool and what to do next.

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