search_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It mentions searching but doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, result format, pagination behavior, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a search tool with 4 parameters.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the core functionality effectively.

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 search tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, or provide enough context about parameters and behavior for effective use.

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 0%, so parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description provides no information about what 'q', 'order', 'page', or 'per_page' mean or how they should be used. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving parameters semantically unclear.

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 action ('Search for code') and resource ('across GitHub repositories'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_issues' or 'search_repositories' beyond the 'code' focus, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_issues' or 'search_repositories'. The description lacks any context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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