verify_github

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the check is live, public-only, and via the GitHub API, and it lists the returned fields. However, it does not mention error behavior, rate limits, or what happens when the repo/PR/issue does not exist, which would be valuable for a verification tool.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and output fields; the second gives a concrete usage example. Every word earns its place.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core need: what is checked, which fields are returned, and when to use it. It lacks error-handling details, but the essential information for correct invocation is present.

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 documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, including the enum for 'kind'. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Check'), a specific resource ('public GitHub pull request or issue'), and the mechanism ('via the GitHub API'). It also lists the concrete fields returned, making it clearly distinct from the generic sibling tools verify_url and verify_claim.

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 gives an explicit use case: 'Use to verify claims like "the PR was merged"'. This provides clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to verify_url/verify_claim.

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