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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real value with an auth requirement ('Requires memory:read') and an error-behavior pointer ('Same binding errors as github_repo_get'), but that cross-reference is opaque without already knowing the sibling, and it never states read-only semantics or result limits.

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 short sentences with the scope statement front-loaded and zero padding. The only weak spot is the cryptic 'Same binding errors as github_repo_get' line, which is compact but costs the reader a lookup.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and both params are fully documented. However, for a code-search tool the description says nothing about result caps, pagination, or which branches/refs are searched — meaningful gaps for invocation correctness.

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 100% and the schema already explains both parameters, including the fact that repo:/org: qualifiers are ignored. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 + scope: 'Search code in one connected repo.' That clearly separates it from github_file_get (single file), github_tree (structure listing), and object_search (non-code objects). It stops short of naming a sibling alternative, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

'in one connected repo' implies the usage boundary (single-repo, not cross-org), and 'Requires memory:read' gives a prerequisite. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus github_tree/github_file_get for locating code, and no statement of when this tool is the wrong choice.

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