Search Hacker News

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that results come from Algolia full-text search, but says nothing about result ordering defaults, the 50-result cap, pagination, or how the filters interact - gaps an agent would hit in practice.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and the backing data source. Nothing is padded or repeated from the title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it does not - no indication that results are stories with points, comment counts, URLs, or timestamps. Combined with 20% parameter coverage and silent filtering semantics, an agent lacks what it needs to interpret results.

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 only 20% (just days_back is documented), yet the description names no parameters at all - not sort, limit, min_points, or days_back. With four of five parameters undocumented in both places, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource - full-text search of Hacker News stories - and even cites the backing engine (Algolia). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling hackernews_stories or hackernews_thread tools, so an agent must infer which entry point fits a given 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?

"Use to find discussion about a topic, product or paper" gives an implied use case, but there is no when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling search/listing tools to route between. The agent gets a nudge, not a decision rule.

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