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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the HTTP method (GET /v1/territories) and enumerates the returned fields, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result limits despite the cursor/limit params.

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 compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by the downstream-use hint and endpoint. No filler, though the trailing bare endpoint adds little for an agent.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and points to downstream consumers of the ids, and annotations cover safety. It stops short of describing pagination or ordering semantics, which is the only meaningful gap.

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 100% and all seven parameters (name, limit, cursor, enabled, sort_order, created_after, created_before) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or filtering semantics beyond that, so 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 and resource and even defines the domain term ("areas a business serves") plus the fields returned: timezone, service area, providers, operating hours. It is clearly a list operation, distinguishable from siblings like get_territory and check_service_area, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

It tells the agent what to do with the returned ids ("filter jobs and invoices or to look up time slots"), which implies downstream usage. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over get_territory, check_service_area, or how the name/enabled filters should be chosen, so usage is only implied.

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