list_platforms

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe, read-only nature is established. The description adds useful behavioral context by revealing that the returned ids are meaningful to get_leaderboard and that names are insufficient there, which goes beyond the bare schema.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the purpose and return fields, the second gives the critical usage note. The essential id-versus-name warning is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

For a parameterless, read-only list tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent what is returned, how to use those results, and why names alone are insufficient—nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 and the input schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Per the rubric, 0 params warrants a baseline of 4; the description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List speedrun.com platforms (consoles/systems) with their ids and names.' It clearly distinguishes this from its siblings by positioning it as the platform-listing tool, and the companion instruction about using ids for get_leaderboard reinforces its role.

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 explicitly explains how to consume the output: use the returned id as the platform filter for get_leaderboard. It also gives a concrete exclusion—use the id, not the name—which prevents a common misuse.

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