Get Platforms

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

Annotations already disclose that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat safety behavior. The description adds that it returns 'all available platforms' and gives examples of platform types, but it does not discuss pagination, authentication requirements, or other behavioral details. With strong annotations and an output schema, this is adequate but not rich.

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, stating the action first and then elaborating on what platforms are. There is minor redundancy between 'Get available platforms' and 'Retrieves a list of all available platforms,' but no significant waste.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with annotations and an output schema, the description gives enough context to understand what the tool does and when it might be useful. It could be slightly more complete by naming related tools or prerequisites, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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, so parameter semantics are not a concern. The schema is empty and the description correctly does not introduce any parameter-related details. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get available platforms' and clarifies that these are 'brokers, exchanges, etc.' used when tracking accounts or transactions. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as get_accounts, get_benchmarks, or lookup_symbols.

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 phrase 'that can be used when tracking accounts or transactions' gives implied usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling alternatives are mentioned.

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