veroq_world_hackernews

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

With no annotations, the description properly discloses that the tool returns a list of stories with specific fields (title, score, comment count, author, URL) and a credit cost of 1. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but for a read-only data retrieval tool, the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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 a one-line headline followed by labeled sections (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, COST, EXAMPLE). However, the EXAMPLE field contains an empty object, which is not a useful demonstration. Overall, it is well-structured and free of redundant information.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately specifies the return fields and cost. It could optionally mention the number of stories returned or data freshness, but for a simple list tool, it is complete enough for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the description's role shifts to explaining what the tool does and what it returns. It adds value by detailing the output fields and context, though the empty EXAMPLE is not helpful. Baseline 4 is appropriate for no parameters.

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 retrieves Hacker News top stories and what the tech community is discussing. It specifies the source (Hacker News) and provides a return list of fields, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like veroq_trending or veroq_search.

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 includes a dedicated 'WHEN TO USE' section explaining the tool is for seeing trending Hacker News topics and tracking tech sentiment. It provides clear usage context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, which is acceptable given its simplicity.

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