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

The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), lowering the bar. The description adds useful behavioral detail about prefix matching across name and cell name, but says nothing about pagination, limits, response shape, or authentication.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the search scope and the core matching rule.

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 4-parameter search tool with zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the definition is somewhat thin: it never explains limit/cursor pagination or the return structure. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the description does not fully close the schema-documentation gap.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It partially explains q by describing name/cell-name prefix matching, but org, limit, and cursor are left completely undocumented, so pagination and org scoping cannot be inferred from the description.

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), resource (org's repos), matched fields (name and cell name), and matching semantics (each word as a prefix). It is clearly a search tool rather than a list tool, though it does not explicitly name siblings like repo_list or source_search.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Search' and the stated scope, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as repo_list or source_search. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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