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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only adds 'Titles discarded' and does not disclose whether the call is a live read, what it returns, whether authentication is needed, or whether any side effects exist.

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 two short sentences and front-loads the core action. 'Titles discarded' adds an important distinction about what the tool will not return, so both sentences have purpose.

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?

The core purpose is understandable, but the tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a large set of optional-looking parameters. The description does not clarify return value shape or whether parameters like feed are actually relevant to HN counting.

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%, which warrants the baseline score. However, the description does not explain how the nine optional parameters relate to the tool, and none of them clearly map to the HN front page source.

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 specifies a verb and resource: count current Hacker News front-page stories. It differentiates itself from the sibling URL/shape/date tools because the target and action are distinct.

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?

Usage is implied: use the tool when you need the count of current HN front-page stories, not the titles. It does not provide explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives.

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