search_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return fields (file name, path, repository, link) and query syntax, but omits important details like pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which are critical for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. Front-loaded with the core action, followed by optional restriction and return information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 relatively simple two-parameter tool, the description adequately covers the what and the return format. However, it lacks information on result limits or pagination, which would be valuable for completeness given no output schema.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it reinforces the repo parameter's purpose and mentions the search syntax, but these are already implied by the schema. The baseline of 3 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 tool searches code across GitHub using GitHub's code-search syntax, specifying the resource (code) and action (search). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like list_repos and get_repo_info, which focus on repositories rather than code.

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 gives usage context by noting the optional repo restriction, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. However, sibling tools are distinct enough that the purpose alone differentiates usage.

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