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

The description goes beyond annotations by listing the signal types matched (owner, contribution, language, topic, repository, and self-declared opportunity signals) and by explicitly disclaiming suitability judgment. This adds meaningful behavioral context while remaining consistent with the readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the trigger scenario, followed by a compact example. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant 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?

The description, combined with rich annotations and an output schema, provides everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers the input trigger, matching behavior, example payload, and an important caveat about suitability.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description includes a helpful JSON example with 'repository' and 'limit', but it does not add substantive semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific triggering scenario ('starts with a public GitHub repository') and a clear action ('wants relevant indexed developers'). It also clarifies what the tool does and does not do ('not a suitability judgment'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like search_developers or get_trending_developers.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: when the user starts with a public GitHub repository and wants relevant developers. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the repository-based trigger provides clear usage context.

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