repo_merge_lookup

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the prediction method and notes the price and catalog fallback, but these are meta-information rather than functional behavior. It does not describe error handling, rate limits, side effects, or the nature of the output. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no 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 a single, focused sentence that leads with the core purpose. The parenthetical adds relevant operational details (price and fallback status) without bloat. Every element serves a purpose and the structure is front-loaded.

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?

With one parameter and no output schema, the description should explain what the caller receives. It explains what is predicted and the basis, but does not specify the output format (e.g., boolean, probability, or detailed breakdown). This gap makes it adequate but not fully complete for a tool without an output schema.

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 schema provides a complete description of the single parameter 'repo' (owner/name format). The tool description does not add any further semantic detail beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb 'predicts' and the specific resource: whether a GitHub repository will merge an AI-authored or external pull request. It also mentions the basis (stated AI/contribution policy and historical merge rates). This is distinct from sibling tools (list_products and package_trust_check), which are unrelated in purpose.

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 the tool — when you want to know a repo's merge likelihood for AI/external PRs — but it provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. Since the siblings are unrelated, this is acceptable but still lacks explicit routing.

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