search_github

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the search returns 'structured metadata,' without explaining result shape, pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether any side effects occur. This is a typical read operation, but the description doesn't confirm its safety or behavior.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It is appropriately brief, though 'structured metadata' is vague and could be replaced with more useful detail without harming conciseness.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return format and calling context, but it doesn't. It also fails to address the multi-provider architecture hinted at by sibling tools and parameters like 'per provider,' leaving important operational details unexplained.

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 100%, with each parameter individually described, so the schema already documents semantics. The description's 'structured metadata' phrase adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what num_results/max_total_results already convey, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 'Search GitHub repositories' clearly names the action and resource, and the GitHub/repositories scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_code and search_web. It falls short of 5 because it doesn't explicitly contrast it with those siblings or clarify what 'structured metadata' means.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies GitHub-scoped repository search by naming GitHub, but it doesn't state conditions, exclusions, or preferred alternatives, so agents are left to infer applicability.

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