search_repos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (curated repos with links, optional stars, timestamped video evidence), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or free of side effects. The verb 'search' implies a read operation, but without explicit annotation, the safety profile is ambiguous. It also does not mention rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and provides concrete examples. It is concise and well-structured with no redundant information.

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 only two parameters, and the output schema exists (covering return values), so the description need not explain the response. It does a good job with 'query' but fails to mention the 'limit' parameter, which is a key control. The schema provides the default and max, but the description omits any explanation of what limit does. For a simple tool, this is nearly complete but leaves a gap.

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 schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'query' parameter well with examples but completely ignores the 'limit' parameter. The description does not clarify what limit controls or its purpose, leaving the agent without full understanding of how to control result count.

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 function: searching the GitHub Awesome catalog for matching repositories. It provides concrete examples ('cold email', 'self-hosted analytics') and distinguishes it from siblings like get_repo (fetch a specific repo) and get_catalog_status (status). The verb 'search' is specific and unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool – when a user needs to find repositories matching a general need. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear and the examples guide usage. No exclusions are stated, but the purpose is self-evident.

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