Git for me! (searched live)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the live search scope per platform (most starred, rising, README text on GitHub; topic/keywords on GitLab/Codeberg) and the returned fields (stars, license, language, last activity, how each turned up). It omits auth needs and rate-limit behavior, which would matter for a live multi-platform search.

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?

Front-loaded with the pipeline position, then the search behavior, then the return payload and next step. It is dense and slightly clause-heavy, but every sentence carries useful information with little waste.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does explain the return payload (stars, license, language, last activity, match provenance). Combined with the explicit next-step routing to verify, it is close to complete, with only auth/limits and full parameter semantics left unaddressed.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is 0% for the single 'parts' parameter, though nested item fields (topic, phrase, keywords, language) are documented in the schema. The description adds the 'for each part' framing and ties the search targets to those fields, but says nothing about 'id'/'name' or the maxItems constraints, so it only partially compensates.

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?

States a specific verb (searches) and resource (repos for each part) across named platforms GitHub, GitLab and Codeberg, and specifies what is matched: topic, keywords, names/descriptions, README text. Placing itself as 'Step 2 of 3' and naming the next call (git_for_me_verify) cleanly separates it from its siblings.

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 workflow framing ('Step 2 of 3', 'Then call git_for_me_verify') gives clear context for when this tool runs in the pipeline. It does not state exclusions or when to skip it, but the sequencing is unambiguous.

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