outremer_list_territories

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

With no annotations, the description must clarify behavior. It accurately conveys that the tool returns a list (implying read-only) and even describes the payload (INSEE codes, portal hints). However, it does not explicitly discuss potential side effects, that it is safe to call repeatedly, or any data freshness considerations, leaving some ambiguity for a tool with no structured metadata.

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 description is a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the key verb and subject, then adds specific detail without any filler. Every word earns its place, making it exceptionally scannable 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 parameter-less list operation, the description covers the essential elements: what is being listed, what field data to expect (INSEE codes), and an example of rich content ('useful portal hints'). It could go slightly further by noting whether the output is flat or includes nested territories, but given the simplicity of the tool, this is a harmless 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?

The tool accepts zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially 100% covered. The description needs to explain nothing about parameter formats or defaults. This hits the baseline of 4 for parameter-less tools, and the description even adds value by noting what the returned list contains, which is complementary.

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 is precise and actionable: 'List French overseas territories' clearly identifies the verb and resource, and the inclusion of 'INSEE department/collectivity codes and useful portal hints' makes the tool's output distinctive, setting it apart from similar tools like outremer_list_communes.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as outremer_get_territory or outremer_list_communes. While the verb 'List' implies a general overview, the description does not mention when one might need detailed territory information or how to drill down, leaving usage context to be inferred.

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