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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself, but it only says 'search.' It does not explain how results are ordered or returned, how limit applies to both stories and comments, how scope behaves by default, or how since/until constrain the search.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded, though it could provide more useful detail without becoming verbose.

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?

Given five parameters, no annotations, and many similar sibling tools, the one-sentence description is under-specified. It omits date format expectations, default behavior details, and any disambiguation from other HN-related tools, making full understanding dependent on inspecting the schema and sibling tools.

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 only 60%, and the since and until parameters lack descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond the word 'topic,' so it does not compensate for the gaps in date formatting or limit/scope behavior.

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 action ('Search') and resource ('Hacker News stories and comments') with a topic parameter. It is clear and informative, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar sibling search tools like hn_tag_search.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hn_tag_search, hn_attitude, or fetch_recent_discussions. The intended use is implied by the verb 'search' but no conditions, exclusions, or comparative context are provided.

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