hn_search

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return format (dict with hits and total_hits), hit structure (id, kind, title, etc.), sort defaults, limit range, and that it's full-text search via Algolia. Does not mention rate limits or idempotency, but search is inherently read-only.

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?

Structured as docstring with Args and Returns sections. Each sentence adds value, though the return format list is somewhat lengthy but necessary. No wasted 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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values and hits structure. Parameters are fully explained. Covers defaults and constraints. Lacks error handling or edge cases, but sufficient for a search tool.

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 coverage is 0%, but description adds meaning beyond schema: explains query as search string, sort options with default 'relevance', limit range 1-50 and default 20. It compensates well for lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Full-text search across HN stories and comments via Algolia,' specifying the verb (search), resource (HN stories and comments), and method (Algolia). It distinguishes from sibling tools like hn_get_story and hn_top_stories, which are specific retrieval tools.

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 explains parameters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for broad search, but lacks explicit when-not or comparison to siblings, reducing guidance.

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