search_repository

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search for repositories by name' and gives param descriptions, but doesn't disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it hits a rate limit, pagination behavior, or any side effects. This is a clear gap for a tool with zero 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 appropriately sized: a one-line purpose followed by a compact Args list. Every sentence is informative and there is no fluff. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

This is a simple search tool with only 3 params (1 required) and an output schema is present, so return values need not be explained. The description is sufficient for basic usage, but with no annotations it's slightly bare for a full understanding. It covers the essential semantics without over-explaining.

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 Args section adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains name as 'repository name to search for', owner as 'optional GitHub user/org to scope the search to', and limit as 'maximum number of results'. Since schema coverage is 0%, this description compensates well, though it doesn't detail defaults or edge cases.

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 starts with 'Search for repositories by name', which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_repositories (which lists all) and search_code (which searches code, not repositories).

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 usage is implied from the purpose: use this when you need to find a repository by name, rather than listing all repositories or searching code. However, there is no explicit statement of when not to use it or what alternatives exist.

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