github_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention any limitations, rate limits, pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or the nature of the return value. While the read-only nature of a search is implied, the description does not explicitly state it or provide any cautionary context.

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 sentences, zero fluff. The description is front-loaded with the core verb and resource, then adds a concise usage preference. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how to construct a query, what the return format looks like, or how pagination works. The high-level purpose is clear, but operational details are entirely missing, leaving the agent unable to use the tool correctly beyond a simple repository search.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for explaining parameters. It explains the 'type' parameter by listing the searchable entities (repositories, code, issues, users), but it does not clarify the meaning of 'query', 'page', 'stars', or 'language', leaving the agent without guidance on how to use these parameters effectively.

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 clearly states the tool's verb ('Search') and resource ('GitHub'), and enumerates the specific searchable entities (repositories, code, issues, users). It also provides a distinctive use case ('open source repos, code patterns, and real-world usage examples'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like web_search.

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 phrase 'Prefer for open source repos, code patterns, and real-world usage examples' explicitly indicates when to use this tool. It gives clear context but does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives, though the sibling web_search is implied as the alternative for non-GitHub searches.

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