search_repositories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it searches, without mentioning read-only behavior, pagination, rate limits, auth requirements, or return format. This is a significant gap for a tool that could have hidden constraints.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence with zero fluff. It front-loads the tool's main action and provides a concrete example of query syntax, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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, no annotations, and a thin description leave the agent without key contextual information such as result format, default behavior, or integration with pagination. The schema documents parameters, but the tool-level context is incomplete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minor context by giving query syntax examples, but these largely overlap with the schema's query description. It does not explain sort/order semantics 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('GitHub repositories'), and gives examples of query syntax. It implicitly differentiates from search_code by specifying repositories, but does not explicitly name any sibling tools.

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 through the phrase 'using query syntax' and examples like topic/language/keywords. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives such as search_code or list_repositories.

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