get_all_content_on_platform

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

The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but the description does not explicitly state that it does not modify data or mention any permissions or limitations. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden but only partially covers behavioral transparency.

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, concise sentence with no redundant information. It is well-structured and immediately understandable, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema fully documents inputs. However, there is no output schema and the description does not mention pagination, return format, or potential size constraints. Given the low complexity, this is mostly sufficient, but a bit more detail about the response would improve completeness.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including the enum values and the default for sortByRating. The description does not add any additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's purpose: retrieving all content on a given platform. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('content'), and the platform scope is explicit. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on recommendations or search.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. While the name and description imply it is for broad retrieval, it does not direct users to alternatives like 'search_content_by_title' for narrower queries or 'get_recommendations_by_platform_and_rating' for filtered results.

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