hn_top_stories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is fully covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — no default item count, no maximum, no indication of whether the list is ranked or how fresh it is.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, appropriate for a one-parameter read tool. Its brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 tool with an undocumented optional parameter and no output schema, the description should say how many stories come back by default and what the limit bounds are. Neither is present, leaving an agent unable to predict result volume.

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?

There is one parameter, `limit`, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden of explaining it — and it never mentions it. Default value, allowed range, and what happens if omitted are all undocumented.

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 ('Get') and resource ('top stories from Hacker News'), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not distinguish itself from the nearby hn_new_stories / hn_best_stories siblings, leaving the ranking distinction to be inferred from the tool names alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over hn_new_stories, hn_best_stories, or hn_ask_hn, and no note on whether it is a one-shot listing or supports paging. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the name.

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