List territories

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

Annotations already provide a thorough safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint). The description adds no extra behavioral context such as pagination behavior, ordering, or rate limits. Credit is given for not contradicting annotations, but no additional disclosure is provided.

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, concise sentence that contains no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and rich annotations, the description is sufficient. It does not describe return format, but no output schema exists and the tool behavior is straightforward. Minor gap: no mention of whether results are paginated, but not critical for this context.

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 fully describes the single parameter 'limit' with default and constraints. The description does not add any parametric meaning beyond what the schema provides, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get the list of territories (countries/regions) for App Store availability.' It names the specific resource (territories) and the context (App Store availability), making it distinct from sibling tools like list-app-categories or list-builds. The verb 'Get' properly indicates a read operation.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool (when needing territory/country lists for App Store availability) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. There is no mention of related tools or when not to use it. The usage context is clear but not fully elaborated.

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