rawg_list_platforms

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond confirming the source collection — no pagination behavior, no indication of how large the list is, no note that results are static reference data.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that maps one-to-one onto the tool's purpose, with no filler or redundancy.

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 reference-list read with no output schema and strong annotations, the description is adequate but thin: it omits the api_key parameter entirely and says nothing about the shape or size of the returned platform 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 0% and there is one documented parameter, api_key, which the description never mentions — not whether it is required, optional, or how to supply it. With one undocumented parameter the description should compensate and does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all gaming platforms') plus the data source (RAWG), so an agent knows exactly what it enumerates. It does not name or contrast with siblings such as rawg_list_genres or igdb_list_platforms, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 statement of when to use this versus rawg_search_games, rawg_get_game, or igdb_list_platforms, and no prerequisites (e.g. that an api_key may be required). Usage is only implied by the verb 'List'.

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