tokportal_list_platforms

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

The description is simple and consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, not destructive). Since annotations already declare this is a safe, idempotent read operation, the description adds little beyond restating the purpose. However, it doesn't contradict annotations, and a 4 is reasonable given the annotations cover the behavioral traits fully.

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 that directly states the action. It is front-loaded and contains no wasted words. Every part earns its place for a tool with no parameters.

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 is simple (no parameters, no output schema, well-annotated), the description is sufficient for a basic understanding. However, it could benefit from explaining what 'platforms' means or the typical use case, especially given the large set of sibling tools. A 3 is adequate but leaves room for improvement.

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 no parameters but has 100% schema description coverage (no parameters to describe). The description adds no parameter-specific info because none exist. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description does not need to add anything beyond the schema.

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 clear verb and resource, but minimally explains what 'platforms' are in the context of the sibling tools. It distinguishes itself from most sibling tools which are about bundles, videos, accounts, etc., but doesn't clarify how it differs from tools like tokportal_list_countries (which also lists something). A 3 is appropriate for a basic but functional description.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like tokportal_get_bundle, tokportal_list_countries, or tokportal_list_accounts could also be related, but there is no mention of when to pick this over them. The description assumes the user knows the domain, leaving the agent with no context for selection.

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