search_repositories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. 'Search' and 'across all projects' convey a read-only, project-spanning behavior, but the description does not say what is returned, whether results are limited/paginated, or if any access considerations apply.

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?

One short sentence that front-loads the action and scope with zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter search tool, the description plus schema is nearly complete: the agent knows what to search for, that it spans all projects, and how to supply the query. A note on the expected result shape would make it fully complete, but the absence is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema fully documents the single query parameter with a clear description ('Repository name or partial name to search for'), so the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), names the resource ('repositories'), and explicitly scopes the action to 'across all projects'. This distinguishes it from the sibling get_repository_info, which suggests fetching details for a known repository rather than searching broadly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the siblings. No mention of using get_repository_info for a known repository or of project-specific alternatives, so an agent must infer the decision context from the tool name alone.

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