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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral context: results are limited to the default branch and reflect GitHub's index rather than the live tree. It also discloses the return shape (matching file paths plus a short fragment). It stops short of noting rate limits, indexing lag, or result caps.

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 short sentences, all front-loaded: what it searches, what it returns, and what to call next. No filler and no repetition of the name or title.

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 two-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers scope constraints, the return shape, and the natural next tool. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the repo argument is a single connected repository and that query is literal text (via the fragment example), but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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+resource ("search the code of one GitHub repository") and narrows scope to the default branch as indexed by GitHub. It clearly separates itself from github_read by naming it as the follow-up step, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from github_repos or github_propose_change.

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 clear context (one connected repo, default branch only) and routes the agent to github_read for retrieving file contents. It lacks an explicit exclusion such as "do not use for issues or PRs — use github_create_issue/github_propose_change," so usage is implied for those cases rather than stated.

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