compareLaunches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It states the tool 'compares' and 'surfaces traction patterns' but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, data modifications, or how the comparison is performed. This leaves the agent with an incomplete understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 single efficient sentence that front-loads the main action. No wasted words.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives the gist but lacks details on the output format or what exactly constitutes 'traction patterns'. The agent may need more context to decide if the tool is suitable.

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 already provides a clear description for the only parameter (storyIds). With 100% schema coverage, the tool description adds minimal extra meaning. Baseline score of 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 verb 'compare' and the resource 'Show HN launches', and specifies the result as 'surface traction patterns'. It differentiates from siblings like findShowHN or getStories by focusing on comparison, though 'traction patterns' is somewhat vague.

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 usage when you have multiple Show HN story IDs to compare, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among sibling tools.

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