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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only reveals that links are produced. It does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, whether it scans public or private repos, or what the search scope is. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely interacts with an external API.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently captures the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, though the brevity leaves other dimensions under-specified. It earns a solid score for structure while sacrificing detail.

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 security-sensitive tool that queries GitHub, the description lacks essential details about authentication, query format, rate limits, or result interpretation. Even with an output schema present, the definition is too sparse for an agent to use it correctly without additional inference.

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?

The schema has one parameter 'q' with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions it. There is no explanation of what to put in q, whether dork syntax is expected, or how the query affects results. The description completely fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states a specific action ('Search') and resource ('GitHub dork links for API key/secret exposure'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like api_key_scan or gh_dorking, so it doesn't fully meet the 'distinguishes from siblings' bar.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The overlap with siblings like api_key_scan, gh_dorking, and githubsearch is not addressed, and no conditions or exclusions are provided. The agent is left to guess when this tool is the right choice.

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