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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and reasonably explains the core behavior: filtering HN stories by domain and by either story URLs or comment recommendations. It is clearly read-only in nature and adds useful surface semantics, though it does not define 'top' or time-window behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded, with two bullet points that each provide essential information. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant repetition of schema fields.

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?

Basic invocation with just a domain is clear and the output schema covers return values. However, the time-window parameters have no semantic guidance, and there is no explicit comparison with sibling signal tools, leaving the context slightly incomplete for an agent.

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 coverage is 60%, and the description adds real meaning to the 'surface' parameter that the schema alone does not provide. However, 'since' and 'until' remain undocumented in both the schema and the description, so the description only partially compensates for the gap.

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 returns top HN stories tied to a specific domainverktyg, and then defines the two surfaces: story URLs and comment recommendations. This distinguishes it from broader HN search or community-signal tools even without explicitly naming them.

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 surface bullets give clear context for how to use the tool, including which mode to select for direct domain URLs versus comment-recommended links. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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