hackernews_ai_digest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose two non-obvious traits: the paid x402 requirement (0.01 USDC on Base) and an 'injection-free' sanitization guarantee. It omits rate limits, caching/recency behavior, and what happens on payment failure, so the safety and cost profile is only partially covered.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the core resource is front-loaded ahead of the price disclosure. The price sentence is short but reads slightly like marketing copy rather than functional detail.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately states the return format (Markdown stories) and the payment precondition. It does not cover recency/ordering of 'top' stories or what happens with limit boundaries, leaving a modest gap.

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% and the single 'limit' parameter is documented as 'Number of stories', so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, range, or ordering semantics beyond that.

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?

Names a specific resource (top HackerNews AI and autonomous agent stories) and the output form (clean LLM Markdown), which is more specific than a bare noun phrase. It does not distinguish itself from the overlapping sibling research_topic_news_scanner, which also surfaces topical news.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no condition selecting this over research_topic_news_scanner or stealth_scrape_and_sanitize, and no mention of freshness or scope limits. The agent must infer applicability from the name alone.

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