get_platform_strategy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of transparency. It describes the content returned (platform roles, conversion path, cadence floor, watch-out) without noting whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. Since the tool name suggests a read-only query, some transparency is implied, but explicit disclosure is missing.

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 a single sentence, but it is dense and packs multiple pieces of information using parenthetical shorthand. It is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, though the format might be slightly compressed for readability. It earns its place without unnecessary fluff.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides the essence of what the tool returns. However, it does not clarify whether the tool returns all platforms at once or a single platform when the parameter is provided, nor does it explain the returned format or the meaning of 'watch-out'. It is adequate but leaves some ambiguity.

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 input schema already defines the optional 'platform' parameter with an enum of six values. The description adds significant semantic value by explicitly mapping each platform to its strategic role (tiktok=reach, instagram=trust, etc.), which helps the agent understand the meaning of each enum option beyond the schema's generic 'Optional: one platform'.

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 tool's output: the strategic role of each platform, including specific attributes like conversion path, cadence floor, and watch-out. Although it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', the tool's name and the descriptive content make the purpose clear. It is differentiated from siblings like get_positioning_framework and get_content_pillars.

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 use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. Sibling tools such as get_positioning_framework and get_content_pillars are conceptually distinct, but the description does not explain scenarios favoring this tool over those.

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