github_search_code

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: indexing is limited to default branches and files under 384 KB, the rate limit is ten requests per minute, and results are capped at 1,000. These are exactly the operational constraints an agent needs and are not available in the schema or hints.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by constraints, with no filler. Every sentence carries a distinct, useful fact.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, indexing limits, query requirements, rate limit, and result cap. Nothing material an agent needs before invoking it is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by constraining the 'q' parameter ('needs a real search term, not just qualifiers'), adding a usage rule the schema's qualifier list does not state on its own.

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 specific verb and resource ('Search code across GitHub'), which cleanly separates it from github_search_repositories and github_search_issues by the indexed resource. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so the differentiation rests on the resource noun rather than an explicit contrast.

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?

Gives actionable context: 'The query needs a real search term, not just qualifiers' tells the agent how to construct a valid call, and the indexing limits bound expectations. It never names an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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