list_stories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: id-pool caps (500 for top/new, 200 for ask/show/job) mean a large limit silently returns fewer stories, and top includes job posts. Rate limiting and failure behavior are not addressed, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return payload, then a scannable feed list and a closing handoff to get_discussion. The feed list partially restates the enum, but the ranking notes and id-cap caveat earn their space. Minor redundancy, no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, yet the description still summarizes the shape briefly. With all four params documented in-schema and the id-cap pitfall disclosed, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and know when to pivot to get_discussion.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning the schema lacks — the ranking logic behind each feed and the fact that 'top' carries job posts — which helps an agent reason about feed choice. It says nothing extra about limit, offset, or min_score, but the schema documents those fully.

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 verb and resource ('Browse Hacker News story feeds') and immediately specifies the payload returned: title, score, author, comment count, links. The per-feed enumeration makes it unmistakable versus siblings like get_story or search_stories, which operate on a single item or a query.

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?

Gives selection criteria for each of the six feeds (ranked front page, newest-first, multi-day high scorers, section feeds) and explicitly rules out comment reading: 'Pass it to get_discussion... this tool returns no comment text.' It does not mention search_stories as the alternative for keyword lookup, so the alternatives coverage is partial rather than exhaustive.

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