get_platform_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: 'No authentication required,' which is crucial for access. It also hints at the tool's scope (health, status, endpoints, referral details) but doesn't specify rate limits, response format, or potential side effects like caching behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds usage context, and the third provides critical behavioral info. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and authentication needs. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., what data is returned for 'health' or 'endpoints') and doesn't mention potential errors or limitations, which could be helpful for an agent.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds value by confirming this implicitly through its focus on general platform info without mentioning any parameters. Baseline is 3 for high schema coverage, but the description compensates by aligning with the parameter-free nature.

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: 'Get the402.ai platform health, status, available endpoints, and referral program details.' It specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'platform info' with concrete details. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_balance' or 'provider_earnings', which might also provide platform-related information.

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 to use it: 'Useful for understanding what the platform offers and how to get started.' It implies this is a general information tool for onboarding or status checks. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'check_balance' for financial status.

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