domain_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses non-obvious aggregation behavior — that subdomains are rolled into the parent domain, with a concrete 'github.com'/'gist.github.com' example — but says nothing about result limits, ordering, or how the 'best stories' are ranked.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the subdomain caveat and the use case. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description is the only source of truth, and it does describe the returned metrics at a high level. However, the undocumented `top` parameter and the absence of any ordering or result-size guidance leave a real gap for a two-parameter analytical tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partly does: the 'github.com' example clarifies the format expected for `domain`. The `top` parameter is never mentioned, leaving the agent to guess that it controls how many best stories are returned.

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 states a specific resource and the outputs it produces: per-year volume, score stats, and best stories for a domain on HN. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_stories or topic_trend, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Useful to judge a source, blog, product or competitor' gives an implied use case but never states when to pick this over search_stories or topic_trend, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than directed.

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