search_stories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does well on matching semantics (AND-of-words, case-insensitivity, phrase quoting, prefix wildcard, inclusive date bounds, body vs title scope), but is silent on sort ordering, result limits, domain filtering, and pagination behavior.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by per-parameter notes with concrete examples ('rust "memory safety"', 'agent*'). Every sentence adds information; nothing is redundant.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the query/date semantics are well documented. Still, four filter parameters (sort, limit, domain, min_score) are undocumented end-to-end, leaving an agent guessing about result volume and filtering.

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 covers 4 of 8 parameters well: query syntax, since/until accepted formats, and include_text's effect. However, sort, limit, domain, and min_score receive no explanation in either the schema or the description, which is a meaningful gap for a filter-heavy tool.

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 plus matching semantics: 'Search archived HN stories by title words (all must match, case-insensitive).' The word 'archived' implicitly contrasts with the search_recent sibling, but that contrast is never made explicit, so the agent must infer it.

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 only implied: 'Empty query lists top stories for the period' gives one useful fallback behavior, and 'archived' hints at recency scope. There is no explicit statement of when to pick this over search_recent, get_thread, or run_sql for text/topic research.

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