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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key trait: the operation is "(read-only)", which is exactly what an agent needs to know before invoking it. However, it says nothing about result limits, pagination, ordering, or authentication requirements for "connected" repositories.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and scope come before the read-only qualifier. Nothing here could be trimmed without losing information.

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 tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and safety sufficiently. The only meaningful gap is behavior around result volume and how the repo filter scopes results.

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%, and the schema already explains both "owner/repo" formatting and query syntax examples, so the description adds little semantic value beyond that. It doesn't clarify how the repo parameter interacts with a repo: qualifier inside query, which is the one ambiguity the schema leaves open.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Search") with a specific resource ("issues and pull requests") and a scope ("across connected GitHub repositories"). It clearly separates itself from siblings like github_create_pr_draft, though it doesn't explicitly rule out searching code, commits, or repositories.

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 phrase "across connected GitHub repositories" implies the use case, and the schema hints at query-syntax usage, but the description never states when to use this versus other search siblings (search_vault, notion_search_pages) or when the optional repo filter should be preferred over query scoping.

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