Get Platforms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful context about what the platforms are and their intended use, which enriches the annotation-only information without contradicting it.

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 short and front-loaded, but the opening line 'Get available platforms' largely repeats the title and first sentence. The additional explanation and return note are useful and compact, with only minor 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, parameterless, read-only getter with rich annotations and an existing output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what platforms are, examples of platform types, and why they are used. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 input schema is fully documented with an empty properties object, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. With no parameters, the baseline of 4 applies.

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 (platforms), specifies they include brokers and exchanges, and states their purpose in tracking accounts or transactions. It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools that target accounts, watchlists, orders, or portfolio data, though it does not explicitly compare itself to any sibling.

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 provides clear context for when this tool is relevant: retrieving platforms to use when tracking accounts or transactions. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but none of the sibling tools appear to serve this same purpose.

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