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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description appropriately does not repeat that. It adds value by specifying return type ('Returns a list') and pagination behavior ('use cursor when paginated'), which goes beyond the schema. No contradiction.

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 tightly written sentences with no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the pagination hint is concise and actionable. Every word earns its place.

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 tool is a simple read-only list with no output schema, the description covers the essential return type and pagination. It does not mention rate limits or response shape details, but those are not critical for a read-only list operation. The description is complete for an agent to call correctly.

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 all four parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds little beyond restating 'accepts a username', which is already in the handle parameter description. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema carries the semantic burden.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'list' and the specific resource 'pull requests authored by a GitHub user'. The sibling set includes github_profile_repositories_list, github_profile_followers_list, etc., so this definition distinctly identifies the operation without ambiguity.

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 implies usage by stating 'accepts a username' and 'returns a list' with pagination note. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like github_profile_repositories_list, the purpose is obvious from context. It lacks an explicit 'use when' but provides clear functional context.

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