List Endpoints for a Platform

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds context about 'No API key required' (auth needs) and lists credit costs, which are useful behavioral details not in annotations. However, it doesn't mention rate limits or response format specifics.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all available endpoints') and includes key details (parameters, credit costs, response types, no API key) without any wasted words. Every element earns its place by adding value.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete enough for a list operation, covering purpose, key outputs, and auth context. However, it could be slightly enhanced by mentioning the return format (e.g., structured list) or linking to sibling tools for related actions.

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 100%, with the parameter 'platform' fully documented in the schema (including enum values and description). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'all available endpoints for a specific platform', specifying what information is included (required parameters, credit costs, response types). It distinguishes from siblings like socialcrawl_list_platforms (which lists platforms) and socialcrawl_get_docs (which likely provides documentation).

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 with 'No API key required', indicating when to use this tool (for endpoint discovery without authentication). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like socialcrawl_get_docs for detailed documentation, though the purpose differentiation implies usage.

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