search_repos

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, open-ended search. The description adds context: 'Returns top results by stars with activity signals,' which discloses sorting behavior and additional data beyond basic results. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination details, so it adds some value but not rich behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by additional context. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying behavior and usage. It's appropriately sized without wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured for optimal clarity.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, annotations present), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers purpose and basic behavior but lacks details on error handling, exact return format, or how 'activity signals' are defined. With annotations providing safety info, it's adequate but not fully comprehensive for an open-world search tool.

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% (only the 'query' parameter has a description). The description doesn't add specific meaning for parameters beyond what's in the schema; it mentions 'keyword or topic' which aligns with 'query' but doesn't explain 'max_length' or provide additional syntax details. With partial schema coverage, the description compensates minimally, meeting the baseline for adequate but not enhanced parameter semantics.

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's purpose: 'Search GitHub for repositories matching a keyword or topic.' It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('GitHub repositories'), and scope ('matching a keyword or topic'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'extract_github' or 'package_trends', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest 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?

The description provides implied usage guidance: 'Use to find competitors, similar tools, or related projects.' This gives context for when to use the tool but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools. For example, it doesn't clarify if 'extract_github' is for different GitHub operations, leaving some ambiguity.

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