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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the access path (Apify proxy, robots.txt obeyed), auth requirement (APIFY_TOKEN), per-launch-row billing, the max_charge_usd stop guard, that the token is never stored or logged, and that failed runs surface as errors with a run ID. That is substantial context an agent cannot get from the annotations alone.

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?

It is a dense paragraph but front-loaded with the core purpose and output shape before filters and operational caveats. Nearly every clause carries information, though the run-on sentence structure and stacking of billing/auth notes makes it slightly harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 13 all-optional parameters and no output schema, the description compensates by describing the returned row fields, the free summary row, the two access routes, and failure behavior. An agent has enough to decide whether to call it and to predict the response without a schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: only_new's memory semantics (free), include_unfeatured's dependency on product_hunt_token, and the effect of open_product_pages on which fields appear. It goes beyond restating the schema without fully explaining every parameter.

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 and resource ('Get the Product Hunt launches of the days you pick') and then enumerates the exact row shape returned, including daily rank, votes, makers, and socials. There are no siblings to disambiguate, and the flat-row-per-launch output model plus free summary row is stated explicitly.

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?

It names the selection mechanisms (dates, days_back, topics, keywords, min_votes) and explains the conditional modes: only_new returns launches an earlier run did not, and the optional developer token adds unfeatured launches. What's missing is any explicit statement of when not to use it or trade-offs between the date-selection paths, so it stops short of full 5-level guidance.

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