search_repos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains query qualifiers, sort options, and limit behavior, and the search wording implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, result truncation, or error behavior, which would add useful transparency.

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 well-organized and efficient: an opening purpose statement, a clear usage trigger, and a compact Args section. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It sufficiently covers all three parameters, how to construct queries, valid sort values, and limits. Minor omissions like rate limits and pagination are not critical for a simple search tool, but would make it fully complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully explain the parameters. It does: query includes qualifiers and examples, sort lists all valid values with the default, and limit specifies range and default. This is strong compensation for the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Search GitHub repositories' — and immediately distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_repo, list_issues, and get_issue. The example user phrasings further clarify the exact discovery use case.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when the user wants to discover repositories' and gives concrete example queries. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the stated context is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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