tokportal_list_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 primary behavioral traits (safe, non-mutating, idempotent). The description adds nothing beyond these annotations; it does not specify return format, pagination, or what constitutes a 'platform'. With annotations carrying the burden, a score of 3 is appropriate – the description does not contradict annotations and is consistent, but lacks extra context.

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 short sentence: 'List available platforms.' It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool, contains no fluff, and front-loads the key action and resource. Every word earns its place.

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 that the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and annotations provide safety traits, the description is largely complete. It tells the agent what the tool does. However, a brief note on what the return value includes (e.g., 'Returns a list of platform objects with IDs and names') would improve completeness slightly. Still, for a simple list tool, this is near-complete.

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 schema coverage is 100% by default. Per the rubric, baseline score is 4. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail, and it does not misrepresent anything. No improvement needed.

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 'List available platforms' uses a specific verb ('list') and a distinct resource ('platforms'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that list other resources like countries, bundles, accounts, etc. The purpose is unambiguous and effectively informs the agent what this tool does.

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 vs alternatives. However, given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, simple enumeration), the usage context is largely implied: it should be used when the agent needs to know which platforms are available. No misleading guidance exists, but explicit when/when-not information is absent.

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