reach_hot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only describes what data is returned, not any behavioral traits like read-only nature, rate limits, or authorization requirements. Basic functional description without side-effect disclosure.

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 sentence with parentheticals, efficient but slightly dense. No redundant information, but could be structured more clearly with bullet points for each source.

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 omits details about output format, pagination, sorting, or error handling. It adequately states purpose but lacks operational context for complete agent use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by listing platforms (hackernews, news, discourse) and regional options (india, western) that map to 'platform' and 'region' parameters. However, 'limit' parameter is not mentioned, and parameter mapping is implicit.

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 provides trending listings from specific sources: hackernews front page, news (with regional options), and discourse forum topics. It uses a specific verb 'reach' but purpose is clear and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on 'hot' content.

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 implies usage for retrieving trending content but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like reach_read or reach_search. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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