search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds context about the Algolia backend and sorting options but does not disclose non-obvious behaviors such as rate limits, pagination, or whether it is strictly read-only. It is not misleading, just minimal.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 search tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about scope and sorting, though it omits any mention of result shape or pagination. Still, the core usage is clear and the schema covers the parameters well.

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 adds semantic meaning by reinforcing the sort parameter ('relevance or date sorting') and the type parameter ('stories and comments'), clarifying what these enums represent beyond their raw definitions.

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's function: searching Hacker News stories and comments via Algolia with full-text search and relevance/date sorting. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like top_stories and get_story, which are about browsing specific categories or fetching individual items.

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 keyword-based search across stories and comments but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like top_stories or get_user. It provides context (full-text search) but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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