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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds genuinely new context: the per-call price of $0.004 USDC via x402 and what a result contains (file paths, links, code fragments). This is useful non-obvious behavior, though rate limits or result caps are not mentioned.

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 tight sentences: capability, use case, filters, then cost. Front-loaded and waste-free, though the cost sentence could be considered secondary detail placed correctly at the end.

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 no output schema, the description usefully explains the return shape (paths, links, code fragments), and it discloses the payment requirement. For a 6-parameter search tool with partial schema coverage, the only remaining gap is parameter formatting detail.

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 coverage is only 33%, so the description must carry weight. It does name the filter dimensions (language, repo, org, filename), which documents three otherwise undescribed parameters, but adds no format or value guidance (e.g., whether org takes a login or full path, valid language values, limit defaults). Meets baseline compensation but not more.

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 and resource ('Search code across all public GitHub repositories') and clarifies the intent with 'find real usage examples of a function, API or config key.' It is distinguishable from github_issues and github by resource, but it never explicitly names the closest sibling, github_search, so an agent must infer the split.

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?

Gives a concrete use case ('find real usage examples of a function, API or config key') that tells the agent when this tool is the right pick. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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