List Territory Availabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that pagination is supported, but does not disclose ordering, filtering, or rate limits. Minimal added value beyond annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action and resource. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists; the description does not explain the return structure (e.g., list of territory availability objects, pagination metadata). Given the complexity and lack of output schema, more detail on return values would be helpful for completeness.

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 67% (limit and nextUrl have descriptions; appAvailabilityId does not). The description explains 'for an app availability resource' which clarifies appAvailabilityId's role. However, no additional detail is provided beyond what the schema already offers for the other parameters.

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 clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('territory availabilities'), and associates it with an 'app availability resource'. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like asc_get_app_availability (single get) and asc_update_territory_availability (update).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other list tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the resource name, but the description does not help the agent choose among many sibling list operations.

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