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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description adds real context beyond them: unreviewed work stays discoverable, and returned types/assessments/contributor metadata are unverified with content treated as untrusted data. That trust-boundary warning is exactly the kind of disclosure an agent needs. It stops short of describing result shape or pagination behavior.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler; the discovery scope comes first and the trust caveat last. Slightly dense but every sentence carries 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?

For a 10-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the discovery caveats well but says nothing about result shape or the pagination implied by page/per_page, nor about what tag and orbit_id scope. Adequate but with visible gaps for a zero-required-param discovery 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 description coverage is 60%, and the fields that are documented (q, type, sort, target_id/target_revision, include_test) are well described there. The description names the facets (literal search, types, tags, chronological order) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, and tag/page/per_page/orbit_id remain undocumented in both places. Baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (discover) and resource (public contributions) and enumerates the available facets: literal search, declared types, tags, chronological order. It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or contrasts with the obvious sibling search_previous_work, so sibling differentiation is left to the agent.

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?

There is no explicit 'use this when' statement and no named alternative, even though search_previous_work sits in the same family. The clause about unreviewed work remaining discoverable is a behavioral fact, not a cue for choosing this tool over another, so guidance is effectively absent.

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