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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'search', implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it mention rate limits, authentication, or any side effects. The description adds no context beyond the bare verb and resource.

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 efficient sentence with no redundant wordsestr, and it front-loads the core action and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it sacrifices necessary context for brevity.

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?

While the tool is simple (one optional parameter, output schema exists), the description still leaves critical gaps: it does not explain expected query format, result scope, or how it differs from noticeably similar siblings. Given the low schema coverage and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete for safe and correct invocation.

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 input schema has one parameter 'q' with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not explicitly define what 'q' means, though the phrase 'stories/comments' might loosely imply it is a search query. This is insufficient compensation for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 clear verb ('Search') and specific resource ('Hacker News stories/comments'), so an agent knows what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'hackernews' or 'hackernews_front', which likely overlap in functionality. Thus it is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions or contexts that would lead an agent to prefer 'hnsearch' over 'hackernews' or other search tools. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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