List registered platforms

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the enumeration is complete, held in contract storage, and includes arcnow.io's platform as a normal entry. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: primary purpose, the contrast with the sibling, the concrete use cases, and the non-privileged default platform. The description is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler.

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 no output schema, the description's mention of fee split and default graduation venue helps set return expectations. It also provides enough context for when to use the tool and what makes it trustworthy. Minor gaps like sorting order or exact response envelope are not critical for a simple paginated list.

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%, and both limit and offset already have clear descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-specific semantics but does not need to; the schema carries that weight adequately.

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 identifies the resource ('every platform the registry has deployed'), the operation (listing), and the key returned fields (fee split, default graduation venue). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from arcnow_list_tokens, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 names the sibling alternative (arcnow_list_tokens) and explains the key difference: this is a complete contract-stored enumeration with no scan window, whereas the sibling presumably scans. It also states concrete use cases: 'what can I launch under' and 'who else builds on this', plus clarifies that arcnow.io's platform is not privileged.

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