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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the required scope (memory:read) and points at a known failure mode ("same binding errors as github_repo_get"), which is genuine value. However it says nothing about read-only safety, result limits, pagination, or ordering for a listing tool with an output schema.

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, front-loaded with purpose before prerequisites. The cross-reference "same binding errors as github_repo_get" forces the agent to open another tool's docs, which is the only structural cost.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values needn't be explained, and auth requirements are covered. Still missing for a 2-param listing tool: pagination/result-cap behavior and any signal about when this is the right choice versus the other github_pr_* tools, leaving the definition adequate but not self-sufficient.

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% — both the github and state parameters are documented in the schema, including the default for state. The description adds only the notion that 'connected repo' is the org's bound GitHub App repo, which is marginal over the schema's "owner/repo the org's GitHub App serves". 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 and resource ("List pull requests") scoped to "a connected repo", which separates it from github_pr_get and github_pr_checks by the inherent list-vs-get distinction. It does not explicitly name the sibling it is not, 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 only implied by the verb 'list' — the description never says when to reach for this versus github_pr_get or github_pr_checks, nor does it note any exclusions. The prerequisite (memory:read) is stated, which is the one piece of selection-relevant context provided.

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