Github Search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the unauthenticated rate limit of 10 search requests/minute and the GITHUB_TOKEN requirement for code search. However, it omits authentication behavior for repo/issue search, error behavior, and result ordering or pagination constraints.

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 short and front-loaded with the tool purpose. The token and rate-limit notes are relevant and compact. The parenthetical about code search is slightly ambiguous given that kind is only documented as repo/issue, but overall there is little wasted text.

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 3-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It covers kind values and operational limits, but lacks query syntax guidance and any explanation of num_results. Output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, but parameter completeness is still lacking.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It enumerates kind values as "repo" or "issue", which is helpful, but it never mentions num_results, its default of 8, or query syntax. Query is self-evident in name only, leaving significant parameter meaning undocumented.

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 and resource: "Search GitHub." The mention of repo/issue kinds clarifies the search target. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling search tools like web_search or scholar_search, but the GitHub resource is distinct enough.

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 no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not direct the agent toward or away from sibling tools such as web_search, scholar_search, or huggingface_search. The kind values describe a parameter, not tool-selection criteria.

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