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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a per-call cost of 1 credit, which is meaningful operational context, but it says nothing about result format, pagination, default limit, or which mode wins when both kind and query are supplied.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence covering both browse and search modes plus the cost, with no filler. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

For a simple three-parameter read tool with no output schema this is close to adequate, but the missing default-limit behavior and the unresolved overlap with the news_search sibling leave real gaps an agent would want filled.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters and their constraints (kind values, limit 1-50, query string). The description adds only the surface-level meaning of the keyword search and does not clarify interactions between kind and query or the default limit.

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 names the resource (Hacker News stories) and the exact operating modes (top, new, best, or keyword search), so an agent knows precisely what it returns. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling news_search, which appears to overlap on keyword search, leaving slight ambiguity about source coverage.

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?

It implies usage: pick a feed kind for browsing, or pass a keyword to search. There is no explicit when-not or guidance on choosing between this and the sibling news_search or rss_read, so an agent must infer the routing decision itself.

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