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

Given no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only hints that titles are discarded, but does not mention whether it fetches live data, makes network calls, handles parameters (which appear to be ignored), or what the exact output format is. An agent cannot infer side effects from this description alone.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary purpose and immediately clarifies a limitation (titles discarded). No redundant information.

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 tool is complex due to 9 optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description doesn't clarify parameter behavior, output shape, or prerequisites. It is far from complete for an agent to invoke this tool safely and predictably.

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 schema contains 9 parameters, all optional, with descriptions that are generic and unrelated to Hacker News (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'City name for a public weather hint'). The tool description does not explain how these parameters affect the count or whether they are simply ignored. The 'discarded' notes suggest they may be irrelevant, but this is not stated in the description, leaving the agent confused.

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 counts current Hacker News front-page stories, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'fetch-status' or 'browser-url-ok' by focusing on a count rather than content retrieval. The note 'Titles discarded' adds a small clarification about what is not returned.

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 any of the 29 sibling tools. It doesn't mention exclusions (e.g., 'use this instead of fetch-status if you only need a number') or any context that would help an agent choose it appropriately.

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