get_repo_stars_since

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: one REST call per repo checked, a recommendation to set max_repos conservatively, and the truncated flag meaning results may be incomplete. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and every sentence earns its place: core purpose, date format, usage example, cost warning, and truncation caveat. No filler or repetition.

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?

The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values in prose. The description covers the key contextual concerns for this tool: cost per repo, truncation risk, and intended prompt type. The only notable omission is top_n semantics, but overall the tool is well contextualized.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It clarifies 'since' formats and default behavior, and explains max_repos in terms of cost/truncation. However, top_n is never explained, and username is only implied, leaving a meaningful gap for a tool with zero parameter descriptions.

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 names a specific verb ('Return'), resource ('repos owned by username'), and ranking criterion ('received the most new stars since a given date'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling tools, none of which are star-trend focused.

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?

It gives a concrete prompt example ('which repos gained the most stars in the last 30 days') and explains the time-window concept. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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