HN Pulse

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

Annotations provide only a title with no behavioral hints. The description adds valuable context by listing the specific data fields returned (karma, about text, creation date), but omits other behavioral traits like error handling for non-existent users, rate limits, or caching behavior.

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?

Single sentence with no waste. Front-loaded with action verb and resource, followed by colon-delimited enumeration of return fields. Every word earns its place.

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 the presence of an output schema and simple 2-parameter input, the description is appropriately complete. It identifies the key return fields, which helps agent selection, though it could mention the optional submissions parameter behavior.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents both parameters (username case-sensitivity and include_recent_submissions). The description focuses on return fields rather than parameter semantics, maintaining the baseline score appropriate for high-coverage schemas.

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 provides a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('Hacker News user's profile'), and distinguishes from siblings by targeting user data rather than stories. It enumerates the specific fields returned (karma, about text, creation date), making the scope crystal clear.

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?

While the description clearly targets user profiles (implied distinction from story-focused siblings like GetTopStories), it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives. No 'when-not' or prerequisite conditions are stated.

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