HackerNews-Search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so effectively by disclosing key behavioral traits: it returns a full nested comment tree, includes metadata details, works for various item types, notes performance implications for large threads (2-3 seconds load time), and specifies error conditions (item doesn't exist or deleted). This covers most critical aspects beyond basic functionality.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines, features, examples, and notes. Every sentence adds value (e.g., performance warning, error handling), with no redundant information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering functionality, usage, and behavior. It explains what the tool returns (nested comment tree, metadata) and includes performance and error details. A minor deduction because it doesn't explicitly describe the output structure (e.g., JSON fields), but this is mitigated by the detailed features list.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds significant meaning by explaining that 'itemId' corresponds to HackerNews item IDs, provides examples (e.g., '38456789' for a story), and implicitly clarifies it's a string identifier. However, it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., numeric strings only), leaving minor gaps.

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's purpose as 'Retrieve detailed information about a specific HackerNews item by ID' with specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('HackerNews item'), and distinguishes it from siblings like get-front-page (list) or get-user (user-focused). The description explicitly mentions it works for stories, comments, polls, and poll options, making the scope precise.

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 provides clear usage contexts with bullet points (e.g., 'View a story with all comments', 'Read a specific comment with its replies'), which implicitly guides when to use this tool. However, it lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions compared to siblings like search-posts, missing a perfect score for not naming specific alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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