GitHub

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value beyond that by disclosing authentication requirements (GITHUB_TOKEN), rate limits (5000 vs 60 req/hr), and the context-specific behavior of issue_templates. It does not contradict annotations, though it does not describe the return format in detail.

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?

Though lengthy, the description is well-structured with bullets and action lists. Every sentence earns its place: summary, usage context, action list, query formats, and authentication details. Front-loaded with the purpose, it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 (9 actions, 5 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all actions, query formats, authentication, and selective usage guidance. Return values are not explicitly stated, but the schema's action property descriptions already include details like 'get issue details + comments', so the description is adequately complete.

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%, so baseline 3. The description adds value by providing concrete query format examples for each action (e.g., owner/repo#number, owner/repo/path) and clarifying the ref= parameter usage, exceeding what the schema alone offers.

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 it searches and retrieves code, issues, pull requests, and repositories from GitHub, listing all nine actions explicitly. It also distinguishes itself from web_fetch_incisive by stating that tool handles GitHub URLs, making the purpose 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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this for GitHub lookups...' and contrasts with web_fetch_incisive for URLs. It also advises when to call issue_templates (before filing if the repo action's frontmatter hints at custom submission flow), giving clear when-to-use context.

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