search_repositories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the literal function. It does not confirm this is a read-only search operation, describe pagination behavior despite the page/per_page parameters, specify what fields the search matches against, or indicate anything about the response format.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the essential function with zero filler. It is appropriately concise and free of redundancy, though it errs on the side of being too terse to carry behavioral or usage guidance.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the one-sentence description leaves meaningful gaps: no return-value information, no search scoping details, and no relationship to sibling read tools. An agent would not know what results look like or how this differs from list_projects in practice.

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 the schema already documents search, page, and per_page with descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema — such as what the query searches against (name, description, README) or how pagination interacts with search results — so it stays at the schema-covered baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('GitLab projects'), clearly identifying the core function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_projects, get_project, or list_group_projects — the distinction between query-based discovery and straightforward enumeration is only implied by the tool name.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as list_projects, list_group_projects, or get_project. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is for query-based project discovery rather than enumeration, direct lookup, or scoped listing.

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