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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint:true and destructiveHint:false. The description adds the behavioral detail that search is by 'title/body keyword', which is helpful but does not cover other aspects like pagination, rate limits, or output format. It adds marginal value beyond 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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity, e.g., mentioning that results are paginated via the 'limit' parameter.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and low param description coverage. The description is too sparse: it does not explain return format, ordering, pagination behavior, or how to use the 'state' filter. For a search tool, this is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke it.

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 has 5 parameters with only 20% description coverage (only 'state' has a description). The tool description explains 'query' (keyword search by title/body) but leaves 'repo', 'owner', 'limit', and 'state' without added meaning. The description does not compensate sufficiently for the low schema coverage.

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 specifies the verb 'search' and the resource 'pull requests', and narrows the search by 'title/body keyword' and 'on a repo'. This distinguishes it from siblings like gluecron_list_prs (which lists without keyword) and gluecron_search_issues (which searches issues).

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?

The description implies usage for keyword-based PR search on a repo, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gluecron_list_prs or gluecron_search_issues. No exclusions or context is given, leaving the agent to infer.

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