extract_producthunt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and external access. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the Product Hunt GraphQL API usage and the HTML scrape fallback, plus timestamped results. It does not mention rate limits or failure behavior, but with annotations covering the core safety profile, this is a reasonable disclosure level.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the API/fallback note plus return field list are concise and directly useful for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately lists the returned fields. It covers purpose, input semantics, external dependency, and output contents. The only notable gap is max_length semantics, which is optional and has a default, so the description is nearly complete for a read-only retrieval 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?

Schema description coverage is 50%: the url parameter is described in the schema, while max_length is not. The description reinforces that url can be a keyword or topic URL and explains what data the tool returns, but it does not clarify the meaning of max_length, which remains underdocumented. It adds some value but does not fully compensate for the schema gap.

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 a specific verb+resource combination: "Recent Product Hunt launches by keyword or topic," and then enumerates the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling extract_* tools (extract_yc, extract_reddit, etc.) by naming the exact source platform and data type.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need recent Product Hunt launches filtered by keyword or topic. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the platform-specific phrasing and sibling tool names make the use case evident.

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