hn

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what authentication or rate limits apply, what the return structure looks like, or how pagination/count behaves. The example shows a search call but does not cover behavior for item, stories, or user actions.

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 compact and front-loaded: resource and capabilities first, usage guidance second, and a concrete example last. Every sentence contributes information without repetition.

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 ten-parameter, multi-action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain which parameters apply to which action, what each action returns, or the behavioral constraints an agent would need to invoke it correctly across search, item, stories, and user modes.

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 10%, so the description needs to compensate for ten largely undocumented parameters. It mentions query, tags, and min_points only through an example, and gives no meaning for action values, item_id, username, count, min_comments, sort_by_date, or firebase_type.

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 identifies Hacker News and enumerates supported capabilities: search, item detail, user profile, and story lists. It distinguishes itself from so_search for resolved Q&A, though the multi-action scope means the exact mapping of actions to parameters is not fully clear from the description alone.

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 provides a clear usage context (tech-community discussion and sentiment) and explicitly routes resolved Q&A use cases to the sibling tool so_search. It does not explain when to use each of the four action modes over the others, leaving some selection ambiguity.

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