search_recent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden alone. It does disclose something meaningful — that results come live from an external Algolia HN Search API, implying network latency and possible rate limits — but it says nothing about cost, throttling, error behavior, or ranking (though 'sort' default of points hints at ranking). For a zero-annotation tool this is thinner than ideal.

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 with no filler, and the scope definition is front-loaded before the routing note. It is arguably over-terse given how little it says about the five parameters, but nothing present is wasted.

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 values need not be explained, and the freshness/routing guidance covers the main decision an agent faces. However, with 0% schema description coverage on five parameters (including the sort enum and min_points filter), the description does not close the remaining gap for a live external-search 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% across 5 parameters. The description only glosses 'days' via 'last N days'; query, sort (points/comments/new), limit, and min_points are left entirely to bare schema titles and defaults. The one enum and the min_points filter in particular deserve a sentence of meaning.

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) and resource (stories) plus a clear scope: the last N days, executed live via Algolia HN Search. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the local-index sibling by saying 'newer than the local index', though it never names that sibling (search_stories) explicitly, which matters given the near-identical name.

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 for anything newer than the local index (see index_status)' gives an explicit selection condition and routes the agent to the sibling that tells it how stale the index is. It never states the inverse (use search_stories for older content) or when-not to use this, so it is clear context without full exclusion guidance.

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