Public ids of the integrated platforms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and network scope are covered. The description adds only the HTTP route, without stating whether ids cover all supported platforms or only currently connected ones, whether auth/workspace scope matters, or what the payload shape is.

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?

One short sentence with no wasted words, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than discipline—the parenthetical route is the only substantive content.

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 zero-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, this is close to sufficient, but the absence of an output schema means the description should clarify what 'public ids' means (a list of strings? platform keys?) and how it differs from platforms_list. As written, an agent can invoke it but cannot predict the result or confirm it is the right 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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is trivially complete, so there is nothing to document beyond what the schema provides. The description does not mislead about inputs.

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 is a noun phrase that essentially restates the title ('Public ids of the integrated platforms'), with no verb describing what the tool does. The only added information is the endpoint path 'GET /v1/platform-config', which hints at a read but does not distinguish it from sibling tools such as platforms_list, conversions_listIntegrations, or revenue_listIntegrations.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives. Given siblings like platforms_list (which sounds like a fuller platform listing) and the various *_listIntegrations tools, an agent has no basis for choosing this tool over them.

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