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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so repeating 'Read-only' earns no credit. The description does add useful behavior beyond the annotations: a hard cap of 5 matches per type and a privacy rule that developers are never returned via API key.

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 definition is front-loaded with purpose and entity scope, then follows with result limits, the privacy exclusion, and usage guidance. It is tight overall, though 'Read-only' duplicates the annotations and the final clause could be trimmed.

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 search with no output schema, the description covers entity scope, result cardinality, the privacy carve-out, and where to go for people. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly appears to be 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 coverage is 100%, so the enum for type and the 2-character minimum for query are already documented. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that matching is by entity name and that PRs match on title or branch, which helps an agent form queries.

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) and resource (Koalr entities), then enumerates the five searchable entity types including how PRs are matched (title or branch). It is immediately distinguishable from listing tools such as list_repositories or get_repository.

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?

It gives clear usage context: use this to find an entity before invoking a more specific tool, and explicitly routes people-searches to list_team_members or list_top_contributors. It does not explicitly say when to skip search in favor of the direct list_* tools, which keeps it short of a 5.

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