hn_search

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds valuable details: uses Algolia API, limits (1-20 results, 1-365 days back), and return structure (JSON with query, total_found, count, hits with fields). No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured with an introductory sentence, scope statement, and formatted Args/Returns sections. It is appropriately sized, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise but overall efficient.

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 description covers purpose, parameters, return structure, and constraints. It does not include examples or error handling, but for a search tool, it is sufficiently complete given the output schema is also present. The Returns section compensates for the lack of explicit output schema in the provided input.

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?

Input schema already provides good descriptions for all parameters. The description's Args section re-lists parameters with descriptions, adding minor clarity but not significant new information. Schema coverage is effectively high due to property descriptions, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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The description clearly states the tool searches HackerNews via Algolia API, covering all historical content. It gives specific use cases (technologies, papers, companies, events). The sibling tool hn_top_stories likely provides current top stories, differentiating this tool.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool (searching all historical HN content for discussions). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but given siblings like hn_top_stories, users can infer appropriate usage. A brief mention of alternatives would improve clarity.

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