Search GitHub for supporting repos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are sorted by stars, includes license and maintenance signals, and provides behavior guidance on preferring permissive licenses and flagging GPL. It does not specify the response format or pagination, but the disclosed behaviors are meaningful and go beyond the 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?

The description is a compact, front-loaded paragraph where every sentence delivers value: purpose, return behavior, licensing guidance, and configuration tip. There is no filler or repetition, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has four parameters and no output schema, so the description should cover both input and output. It covers input context well with examples and explains the sort order and license signals, but it does not describe the actual return structure or fields, which is a notable gap for an agent that must consume the result.

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 50% (query and language have descriptions, but limit and minStars do not). The description provides an example for the query parameter and adds context for sorting, but it does not elaborate on limit or minStars semantics beyond their schema defaults and constraints, leaving a moderate gap in parameter understanding.

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 states a specific verb ('Search GitHub') and a clear resource ('GitHub') with a defined goal: finding libraries, starter kits, components, or reference implementations that support the app being built. This distinguishes it from siblings like web_search or fetch_url by focusing on code repositories and giving concrete examples.

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 gives clear usage context: when you need supporting code such as libraries, starters, or reference implementations, with examples of what to search for. It adds practical guidance on license preferences and rate-limit token setup, but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternative tools for other kinds of searches.

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