firecrawl_research_search_github

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

The description goes beyond annotations by specifying the return structure: ranked matches with repo, url, snippet, and optionally full content in markdown. Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive, so the description adds value by detailing what the agent can expect.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the action and resource, then details the return format. Every word is necessary and there is no fluff.

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 simple search tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers scope and output structure well. However, it omits any mention of pagination, sorting, or result limits (e.g., default k). The absence of these details is a minor gap, but overall it provides sufficient context for most use cases.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for query or k. The tool description does not explain what k (likely number of results) represents, nor any details about the query format. Since the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, the score is minimal.

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 uses the verb 'Search' and specifies the resource as 'GitHub issue/PR history and repository readmes', distinguishing it from sibling tools like firecrawl_search (general web search) and firecrawl_research_search_papers (papers). The name also includes 'github' to further clarify the scope.

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 implies that this tool is for searching GitHub-specific content, but does not explicitly state when to use it over general search or paper search. No alternative tools or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and siblings.

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