horizon_torn_getTerritoryOwnership

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. However, it only states the function without describing data freshness, caching, authentication needs, or result formatting. Critical transparency details are omitted.

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 extremely brief (6 words), but it is a fragment and not a complete sentence. While concise, it sacrifices clarity and structure, earning a midpoint score.

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?

Given no output schema and 5 parameters, the description provides insufficient context about the returned data (e.g., format, pagination) or how the tool fits into the larger workflow. A more complete description is expected.

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 description adds no information about parameters. With 60% schema coverage, 'limit' and 'offset' lack descriptions in the schema and are not clarified in the description. The tool fails to compensate for missing parameter semantics.

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 'Get a list territory ownership' indicates the tool retrieves territory ownership data, but the phrasing is awkward and lacks specificity. Compared to sibling tools like 'horizon_torn_getFactionTerritory' and 'horizon_torn_getMyFactionTerritory', the scope (global vs faction-specific) is unclear, making it insufficient for differentiation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus related territory tools (e.g., getFactionTerritory, getTornTerritory). The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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