bb_search_repositories

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

readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already establish that this is a safe read over the open world, and the description adds no further behavioral caveats such as auth requirements, rate limits, ordering, or pagination. The only extra trait is the ISO 8601 date restriction, which is more of a parameter constraint than a behavioral disclosure.

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 with the core verb, query syntax, and alternative mode in the first and second lines; no filler. Front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 read-only search tool with a full input schema, an output schema, and annotations, the description supplies the missing pieces: query-syntax semantics, the ISO date rule, and routing to file-content search. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is absent.

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?

Because schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3; the description elevates this by giving representative syntax for four query dimensions and explicitly limiting dates to ISO 8601. It doesn't add information about page/pagelen/workspace, but those are simple and fully documented in the schema.

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?

States a clear action ('Search repositories') and a specific resource (Bitbucket repositories), with concrete query-syntax examples for names, project keys, languages, and dates. The final sentence explicitly differentiates it from file-content search, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling endpoints.

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?

Provides an explicit conditional: use this tool to search repository metadata; use bb_list_endpoints code-search endpoints instead when the goal is file contents. This is a clear when/when-not pair with a named alternative.

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