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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully identifies the public Algolia API and its hn.algolia.com backend, which implies a read-only, unauthenticated search, but it does not disclose result ordering, pagination, rate limits, or what the response contains.

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 front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. Every phrase adds either the resource, the action, or useful backend context.

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 search tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits important search behavior such as result ordering, pagination, and return shape, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke and interpret it.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning such as query syntax, default behavior for story_limit, or the purpose of notification_message, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Hacker News stories') and identifies the backend API. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling list tools such as best_stories, new_stories, or top_stories.

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 word 'Search' implies keyword-based lookup and therefore contrasts implicitly with browsing top/new/best stories, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. Usage is inferable but not directed.

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