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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, yet the description adds real value beyond them: coverage limited to public repositories, newest-first ordering, and a cost of 1 credit. It does not describe pagination limits or page-size behavior, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by scope/ordering and then the filtering and cost notes. No filler.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly: it establishes the author-based scope, date filters, ordering, and cost. Pagination semantics (cursor as page number) and cache_max_age are left entirely to the schema.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that since/until filter on creation date (already in the schema) and clarifies that 'handle' is the author whose PRs are returned, but it says nothing about cursor or the undocumented cache_max_age parameter.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Pull requests by a user') and adds scope ('authored by a user across all public repositories, newest first'), which clearly separates it from repo-centric siblings like github_repository or github_userRepositories. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope sentence — an agent can infer this is for enumerating a user's PRs — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or pointer to alternatives such as github_activity or github_contributions that might also surface PR data.

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