search_stars

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 usefully discloses that the search matches name, description, and topics, and that language filtering is optional. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention any pagination, sorting, or authentication requirements. This leaves some behavioral ambiguity, though the term 'search' implies a read-only operation.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and key details without any unnecessary words. Every part (keyword scope, language filter) earns its place, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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?

For a simple search tool with three parameters fully described in the schema, the description covers the essential search semantics and optional filter. It does not explicitly state the return format or mention the 'limit' parameter, but these are implied by the tool's purpose and covered in the schema. Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description is reasonably complete but could add a brief note on return value or pagination behavior.

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?

The input schema already has descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the 'query' keyword matches name, description, and topics, which the schema's 'Keyword to search for' does not convey. It also reinforces the language filter. This extra context justifies a score above baseline.

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 the tool performs a keyword search over GitHub starred repos, specifying that it matches name, description, and topics. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_stars, get_star, and refresh_stars, which imply different operations.

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 the primary use case: finding starred repos that match a keyword, optionally filtered by language. It provides clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. Sibling tool names (e.g., list_stars) help imply when a different tool would be more appropriate, so this is not misleading.

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