get_hn_discussion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it fetches top-level comments (with a max count) and accepts both a URL and a numeric ID. However, it does not mention potential error behavior, whether nested comments are included, or explicitly state it is read-only (though 'fetch' implies it). This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement, a usage line, and a parameter list. Every sentence contributes value, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the parameter details.

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 simple fetch tool with an output schema present (which presumably documents the return format), the description covers the main use cases and parameters. It might benefit from noting any API prerequisites or limitations regarding sub-comments, but overall it gives an agent enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description is the sole provider of parameter meaning. It fully explains story_url as either the HN discussion URL or numeric ID, and max_comments as the number of top-level comments with a default of 15. This completely compensates for the missing schema details.

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 action (fetch) on a specific resource (Hacker News discussion comments for an article) and provides an example use case. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools, which are general news aggregators, so an agent can immediately tell what this tool does.

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 explicitly tells when to use it: when the user wants to know what people are saying about a specific Hacker News story or wants more details/opinions. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the stated context is sufficient to choose this tool over the generic news tools.

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