collect_platform_evidence

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that it 'searches and reads only within the user-requested task scope,' which offers some context. However, it omits key behaviors like pagination, auth strategies, and link following, which are critical given the parameters.

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 short (two sentences) but not optimally concise due to vague phrasing ('compatibility-oriented'). Every sentence earns its place, but the structure does not front-load the most critical information.

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 the tool has 7 parameters with enums and an output schema, the 2-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter usage, output format, or how to use it effectively, leaving the agent with significant gaps.

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 0%, yet the description provides no explanation of any parameter (query, platform, max_pages, etc.). Parameter names and enums offer some clues, but the description fails to add value beyond the schema.

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 states the tool collects platform evidence by searching and reading within a task scope, which is somewhat clear but vague. The phrase 'compatibility-oriented' is unclear, and it does not strongly distinguish from sibling tools like search_platform or read_url.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_platform or read_url. The description implies a limited scope but does not define conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools.

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