github-api.searchRepos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the name—no mention of response format, pagination, rate limits, or any operational nuance. Since it adds zero value beyond what annotations provide, it scores low.

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 sentence with no wasted words—it is concise and to the point. However, it is so minimal that it forgoes additional useful context (like when to use it or what it returns), which would make it more helpful while still being concise. It earns its place as a purpose statement but lacks depth.

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 no input parameters and an output schema exists (not shown), the description is not required to explain return values. However, it fails to provide any context about when to use this tool versus sibling tools like github-api.getRepo. The annotations cover safety, but the usage context is entirely missing, so it is not fully complete for an agent's decision-making.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per the rubric, 0 params gives a baseline of 4. The description adds nothing about parameters, but since there are none, there is nothing to clarify. The baseline is appropriate.

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 action (search) and resource (GitHub repositories), which is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like getRepo (specific repo fetch) and listRepoIssues (issue listing). However, it lacks scoping details such as what search parameters or filters are applied, making it slightly less specific than the top-tier example.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that github-api.getRepo fetches a single repository by name, or listRepoIssues handles issues, nor does it suggest when searchRepos is preferred. No usage context or exclusions are given.

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