githubSearchPullRequests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds critical behavioral details in the <gotchas> section, such as 'prNumber ignores ALL other filters' and 'Avoid fullContent on large PRs (token expensive)', which go beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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-structured with clear sections (<when>, <fromTool>, <toTool>, <gotchas>, <examples>) and is front-loaded with the title and external API note. While comprehensive, it is relatively long, but each section earns its place given the tool's complexity.

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 complexity (many parameters, nested query objects, relationships to siblings) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers usage patterns, gotchas, and integration with other tools comprehensively. It provides enough context for an agent to use it effectively.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for each parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds value through concrete examples showing parameter combinations and the gotcha about prNumber. However, the description does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it does not fully compensate for the high schema coverage.

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 Pull Requests'. The <when> section provides specific use cases like code archaeology and implementation history, and the fromTool/toTool sections differentiate it from sibling tools by showing how they relate.

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 <when> section explicitly outlines when to use this tool (code archaeology, implementation history) and suggests a workflow (metadata first, then partialContent). The fromTool and toTool sections provide clear guidance on alternatives and sequencing, e.g., using githubSearchCode first, then this tool.

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