search_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses search behavior and sort options ('relevance' or 'date'), but does not explicitly state read-only nature, output format, or potential side effects. The output schema covers return shape, but the description adds limited behavioral context beyond the parameter list.

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 a brief summary followed by a tight, structured parameter list. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundant content. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has an output schema, so not explaining return values is fine. The description covers all parameters, defaults, and constraints (e.g., count max, page 0-indexed), making it complete for successful invocation. It lacks explicit rate limit or auth info, but these are not critical for a public HN 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: 'story_id: Optional — only search comments on this story,' 'count: Results per page (default 20, max 100),' 'page: Page number, 0-indexed.' This adds meaning well beyond the schema's bare types and defaults.

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 opens with 'Full-text search for HN comments,' a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_stories and get_thread. The parameter list further clarifies its comment-specific scope.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (searching comments) through its title and 'Full-text search' context, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions. This is clear context without explicit 'do not use if' guidance.

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