github_search_commits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral constraint not present in structured data: a rate limit of 30 requests per minute, which an agent must respect when issuing repeated searches.

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, front-loaded with the core action and scoped qualifiers, then a purpose statement and a rate-limit caveat. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 fully documented schema, the description covers purpose, the query shape and a rate limit. It says nothing about result shape or pagination behavior, though the page/perPage params imply paging; with no output schema, a brief note on what a result contains would have closed the gap.

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%, so all five parameters including the qualifier syntax for `q` are already documented. The example query 'repo:owner/name fix flaky test' illustrates composition of qualifiers, but it repeats qualifiers the schema already enumerates, so it adds only marginal meaning beyond 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 specific verb (Search) and resource (commits) plus the axes of search (message, author, date) and the target system (GitHub). The second sentence clarifies the higher-order purpose — locating where a change was introduced — which no sibling tool covers, so it is trivially distinguishable from the rest of the list.

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 a clear use case: 'The way to find where a change was introduced,' which tells the agent when this tool is the right pick. It does not name an alternative or state exclusions, but no sibling tool overlaps with commit search, so the omission costs little.

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