search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool searches, without mentioning pagination behavior, ordering, rate limits, or what happens with no results. This leaves key behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 a single concise sentence with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words.

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 tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain search mechanics (e.g., full-text search, ordering), result expectations, or how to effectively use parameters like type and pagination. It lacks completeness for a search tool of this complexity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the tool's purpose. Parameter details (page, type, hitsPerPage) are already adequately described in the schema.

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 'Search for stories and comments on Hacker News' clearly states the action (search) and target (stories and comments on Hacker News). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like getStories, findAskHN, etc., which are more specific retrieval operations.

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 like getStories, findAskHN, or extractStartupInsights. It lacks context about when a general search is appropriate versus more targeted queries.

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