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. It only mentions 'using the search API' and does not describe rate limits, result limits, pagination behavior, or return format. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple parameters.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains no fluff or repetition, earning a high score for conciseness, though it could be more informative without becoming verbose.

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's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It does not explain how to construct queries, handle pagination, or interpret results, leaving critical context for an agent to correctly use the tool.

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 coverage is only 20% (only the query parameter has a description). The description mentions no parameters at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. It fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters like page, sort, order, and per_page.

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 purpose: to search repositories on GitHub using the search API. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('repositories'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_code and search_issues.

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 implies usage for repository search but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_code or search_issues. It provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer based on the resource type.

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