get_hackernews_trending

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states the basic function. It does not mention rate limits, data freshness, authentication needs, or whether the tool is read-only (though it likely is). This is a significant gap for safe invocation.

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 sentences front-loading the purpose and specifying parameters with examples. No words are wasted.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers input parameters adequately but omits output format and behavior (e.g., whether it returns full story objects or just titles). Given the sibling tools, this missing info could confuse the 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 0%, so the description partially compensates by explaining that keywords are comma-separated and limit defaults to 5 with 'Maximale Treffer'. However, it does not clarify whether 'limit' applies per keyword or total, nor what constitutes a 'hit'.

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 it searches HackerNews top stories by keywords ('Sucht HackerNews Top-Stories nach Keywords.'). However, it does not distinguish this from related sibling tools like get_hackernews_top or search_global_news, missing an opportunity to clarify its specific scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over its siblings. The description does not mention conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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