hn_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses little beyond the data source. It does not say whether results are stories only (vs. comments, which has a sibling tool), whether the index is rate-limited or eventually consistent, or what the response shape/pagination looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb, resource, and source; nothing redundant or padded.

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 simple three-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but thin: it omits any behavioral notes (result set contents, rate limits, pagination) that an agent with no annotations would benefit from.

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 sort, limit, and query are all self-documented with enums, defaults, and ranges. The description adds only the confirmation that 'query' means keywords, matching the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (Search), resource (Hacker News stories), and scope qualifier (by keyword), plus the backing data source (Algolia HN Search API). The 'by keyword' framing implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling listing tools (hn_latest, hn_top, hn_best), though it does not name them.

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?

Usage is implied: reach for this when you have search terms rather than wanting a ranked feed. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to the sibling tools an agent must choose between (e.g., hn_latest for recent items vs. this for keyword queries).

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