run_producthunt_forums_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the cost model ('1 point per returned record') and confirms pagination behavior. It omits rate limits, whether keyword search is exact/partial, and any auth or result-shape context.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the cost note. No filler; each sentence earns its place.

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 3-param read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. Its main gap is not differentiating from the overlapping run_producthunt_forums_threads sibling, which matters given the dense Product Hunt sibling set.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented with examples and bounds (max_items up to 250, start_page minimum 1). The description adds only the conceptual distinction of browsing vs. keyword search, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Browse Product Hunt forum threads page by page, or search them by keyword.' It clearly conveys two modes (browse and search). However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling run_producthunt_forums_threads, which likely overlaps with the browsing mode.

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?

Usage is implied: use browse mode for paging through threads, or the keyword param to search. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no naming of the alternative run_producthunt_forums_threads, leaving the agent to infer selection.

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