get_onboarding_platforms

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get details,' indicating a read operation with no side effects. However, it does not disclose any authorization requirements, data freshness, or whether the results are comprehensive or filtered. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the purpose and provides examples. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or 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?

For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It clearly explains what the tool returns. A score of 5 would require additional context like typical use cases or data sources, but 4 is appropriate.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty (100% coverage). Per guidelines, baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description adds value by specifying what details are returned, which is sufficient given no parameters to document.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get details') and resource ('first-party data onboarding platforms and clean rooms'), provides examples (LiveRamp, Habu, InfoSum), and lists the details returned (platforms, use cases, contact info). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tag_management or measurement partners.

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 implies usage for retrieving onboarding platform info but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Given the simple nature of a zero-param tool, this is acceptable but minimal.

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