githubSearchRepositories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: gotchas like pushedAt vs updatedAt distinction, stars filter noise, archived auto-exclusion, and synonym suggestions. Adds significant value 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 moderately long but well-structured with clear sections (<when>, <fromTool>, <toTool>, <gotchas>, <examples>). Every section adds value and the front-loading of purpose is good. Slightly verbose but acceptable given 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 complexity of the tool (multiple query parameters, pagination, interaction with other tools), the description is complete. It covers usage context, tool flow, gotchas, and examples. Output schema exists, so return values are not needed.

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 parameter descriptions (e.g., stars filter format, match enum). The description itself doesn't add much beyond schema for individual parameters but provides examples that illustrate usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Search GitHub repositories' and distinguishes from sibling tools like packageSearch (faster for known packages) and githubSearchCode (code search). The purpose 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 includes explicit <when> usage context (external research, finding repos) and <fromTool>/<toTool> sections that guide the flow between tools. It also names alternatives like packageSearch for known packages, providing clear when-to-use guidance.

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