extract_hackernews

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and data scope. The description adds context about 'real-time dev/tech community sentiment' and 'post timestamps,' which are behavioral traits not in annotations. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or specific extraction behaviors like pagination or error handling.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first states the action and resource, the second provides context on data characteristics. There is no wasted text, though it could be more structured with explicit usage guidelines.

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 no output schema and annotations covering read-only and open-world aspects, the description is moderately complete. It adds context like 'real-time sentiment' and 'timestamps,' but lacks details on return format, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. For a tool with 2 parameters and 50% schema coverage, more parameter explanation would improve completeness.

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 50% (only 'url' has a description). The description does not add meaning for parameters beyond the schema; it mentions 'top stories or search results' but does not explain how 'url' or 'max_length' relate to this. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters partially undocumented.

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 extracts top stories or search results from Hacker News, specifying the resource (Hacker News) and action (extract). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'dev/tech community sentiment' and 'post timestamps,' which are unique to this data source compared to other extract tools like extract_github or extract_scholar.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'top stories or search results' but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it does not clarify when to choose this over other extract tools like extract_github for tech-related data.

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