buygit_search

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that results include license, popularity, risk, and pricing, and mentions sorting options. Does not mention rate limits or edge cases, but for a search tool this is adequate. No contradictions with annotations (none exist).

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?

Two well-structured sentences that front-load the core purpose and key benefits. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Clear bullet-style listing of filters and sort options.

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 rich input schema (8 params with full descriptions) and presence of output schema, the description provides all necessary context. It covers dataset size, result content, filters, sorting, and when to use vs alternatives. No gaps.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides (examples, constraints). Examples in description mirror schema examples, providing no additional value.

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?

Description clearly states it searches curated Git assets, differentiating from raw GitHub search. It lists what results contain (license, popularity, risk, pricing) and available filters, making the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like buygit_trending.

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?

Explicitly states when to prefer this tool: when user wants to use/buy a project, compare alternatives, or check license compatibility. Also explicitly says to use github-mcp for private repos/Issues/commits, providing clear alternatives.

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