list_territories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the output (territories with currencies) and implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or any side effects. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence defines the action and output, and the second provides a use case. Ideal length for a straightforward list tool.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the returned data (territories and currencies) and a typical use case. However, it could mention the return format or that results are paginated (if applicable).

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 input schema covers 100% of the single parameter (limit) with a clear description and constraints. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, earning the baseline score for high coverage.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists App Store territories with their currencies. The use of 'all' slightly contradicts the optional limit parameter, but overall the verb and resource are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools that deal with other entities like apps or builds.

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?

Provides a single use case ('understanding which markets are available for pricing') but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_app_price_points or get_app_price_schedule. No exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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