reeling_get_platform_matrix

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key traits: it is public, requires no API key, and returns static capability/pricing metadata rather than user data. It does not explicitly confirm read-only/no-side-effects or note caching or rate limits, but the 'Returns' framing and no-auth note cover the main concerns.

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?

One tightly packed sentence with the access qualifier and no-API-key note front-loaded, so the agent learns the most decision-relevant fact first. The enumerated payload list is dense but every element 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by listing exactly what the response contains (platforms, auth methods, limits, pricing). Adequate for a zero-required-parameter reference tool; only the shape of the returned records is left unspecified.

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 single optional 'platform' filter is fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage, including example keys, so the schema does the work. The description never mentions filtering, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Returns) and a precise resource (Reeling's 15 supported platforms) and enumerates the payload (auth methods, limits, pricing tiers), which no sibling tool provides. An agent can immediately tell this is the reference/metadata tool rather than an action tool like reeling_publish_post or reeling_list_channels.

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?

'PUBLIC DISCOVERY TOOL (No API key required)' implies this is a lookup to consult before acting, but the description never says when to call it versus related siblings such as reeling_get_channel_options or reeling_list_channels. Usage is inferable rather than stated, with no explicit exclusions.

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