search_github

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: rate limit increases with GITHUB_TOKEN (60 to 5000), secrets/key exposure search, passive nature, and specific output details. No contradictions.

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 a single paragraph of 6 sentences, efficiently conveying all key points. It is front-loaded with purpose. Slightly verbose with the authorization note, but overall concise.

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 description covers query types, token behavior, secrets search, rate limits, and ethical use. It lacks explicit return format but provides enough context for an AI agent to understand behavior. No output schema exists, so description carries the burden.

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 query parameter lacks schema description but the tool description clarifies it as 'username, email, or keyword'. The json_output parameter is already described in schema. This compensation raises the score above baseline.

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 GitHub for usernames, emails, or keywords, with specific behaviors for exact username matches (full profile, repos, emails) and other queries (top 5 accounts). It is distinct from sibling search tools due to its GitHub-specific focus.

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 implies when to use this tool (for GitHub-centric searches) and includes usage policy (authorized use only, passive public-source). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_username or search_email, which would strengthen guidance.

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