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, which inform the agent this is a safe, read-only operation. The description does not add any behavioral traits beyond this, such as whether the list is paginated, sorted, or filtered. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description provides minimal extra value, scoring a 3.

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 extremely concise at three words, front-loading the purpose. Every word is necessary, but it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness (e.g., 'List all available platforms in the system'). Still, it is efficient and to the point.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the agent will receive. It does not mention the return format, fields, or whether the list is a list of names, objects, or IDs. For a simple list tool, this is a notable gap in 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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description does not need to explain parameters, but it could mention the output structure. According to the rubric, 0 parameters gives a baseline of 4, and the description does not add anything beyond the schema, so 4 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 'List available platforms' clearly states the action (list) and resource (platforms), which is specific enough among the many sibling tools. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'platforms' refers to (e.g., video platforms, analytics platforms), leaving some ambiguity about the scope. The name itself is clear, and there is no tautology.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tokportal_list_countries' or other list tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context that would help an agent decide when to invoke this tool. The agent must infer from the name alone.

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