territories_get_collection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing: no pagination behavior, no auth requirements, no response shape, no rate limits. For a list endpoint with zero structured safety metadata this is a complete gap.

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?

It is short, but the content is a duplicated parenthetical route string that conveys no additional information. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should carry everything, yet it provides only the raw route. An agent gets no sense of what a territory record contains, how results are paginated, or why it would call this instead of a territory relationship tool.

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 100%, so 'limit' and 'fields_territories' are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, but baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 only the HTTP route restated twice, 'GET /v1/territories (GET /v1/territories)', which is effectively a tautology of the tool name. An agent can infer that it lists territories, but no verb/resource phrasing or scope distinguishes it from sibling collection getters.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, what alternatives exist, or any preconditions. The agent is left to infer from the name alone that this is the unfiltered territory list.

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