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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the search is unauthenticated and limited to 10 results, which is useful. However, it does not describe the output format, error behavior, or any rate limits, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key constraints. It wastes no words, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter tool, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the parameter, the return value, or how it differs from the many sibling GitHub search tools. The output schema exists but is not described, and the description alone is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 a single parameter 'q' with zero description coverage, and the description does not mention 'q' at all. The agent has no clue what to put in the query string. With 0% schema coverage, the description was obligated to explain the parameter but failed to do so.

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 the tool performs a GitHub code search, explicitly noting it is unauthenticated and returns 10 results. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('GitHub code'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'githubsearch' or 'ghrepo'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other GitHub-related tools. It does not mention alternatives, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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