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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Starts billing' is a genuinely valuable disclosure of a side effect, but it omits permissions required, whether provisioning is asynchronous, and whether the result is reversible via delete_territory.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a dense but necessary tier table and the billing warning. Every clause carries information the schema does not.

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?

Creation semantics and tiers are fully covered, but with no output schema and no annotations the description should say what is returned (e.g. a territory ID) and whether the call blocks until provisioning finishes. Those gaps matter for a billed mutation.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the enum values are bare integers, so the description does the entire job: it maps each index 1-7 to a named tier with concrete CPU/RAM/disk specs. An agent can choose a tier from the description alone.

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 and resource ('Create a new territory'), which is unambiguously distinct from delete_territory, list_territories, and rename_territory. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, but the create/delete/list/rename distinction is obvious.

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?

There is no guidance on when to create a territory versus other workflows, no prerequisites (auth, quota, account state), and no exclusions. 'Starts billing' hints at a consequence but is not usage guidance.

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