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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the meaningful state semantics: Queued means provisioning and cannot host apps, Active means ready to host, Deleted is terminal with billing stopped. It does not cover failure behavior (unknown/invalid territory_id), permission requirements, or that this is a non-mutating read, leaving some gaps.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the return-value breakdown. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values were already covered, yet the description helpfully augments them with lifecycle meaning. For a low-complexity single-parameter lookup this is nearly sufficient; only the origin of territory_id and error/edge-case behavior are 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required territory_id, so the description must compensate, and it does not. It never explains what a territory_id is, its format, or that it can be obtained from list_territories; 'one territory' adds essentially nothing beyond the parameter name.

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+resource ('Get the status of one territory') and the singular scope implicitly separates it from the list_territories sibling. It is clear and unambiguous, but it never explicitly names the contrasting sibling or the bulk alternative, so it stops just short of the top mark.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'Get' — the agent can infer this is the lookup for a single territory's lifecycle state. There is no statement of when to prefer it over list_territories, no prerequisites (e.g., where territory_id comes from), and no exclusions.

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