find_automation_signals

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this has side effects and reaches an external network, but the description never explains what those side effects are — nothing about caching/fetching from HN, persisting results, or linking to a task node via aufgabe_id. The one thing it does convey (external HN source) is already implied by openWorldHint.

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 well-formed sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource and its source. It is not padded, but its brevity is achieved by omitting information rather than by tight editing.

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 6-parameter, non-read-only, open-world tool that can persist links to task nodes, one sentence is not enough. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the write behavior, refresh semantics and parameter meanings are all absent.

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 only 50%: suchbegriff and aufgabe_id are documented in the schema, but limit, aktualisieren, nur_kommentare and zeitraum_days carry titles only. The description compensates for none of these, so the agent is left guessing what 'aktualisieren' refreshes and how comment-only filtering interacts with the search.

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 (Automatisierungssignale) and its source (Hacker News), plus a clarifying gloss that these are reports of how activities were automated. That is specific enough for an agent to know what it retrieves, though it never explicitly says it is a keyword search nor differentiates itself from siblings like search_knowledge or commoncrawl_lookup.

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 the many sibling search/lookup tools (search_jobs, search_knowledge, commoncrawl_lookup, search_arbeitnow). No exclusions, no prerequisites, no mention of when the refresh or comment-only modes should be chosen.

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