territory_get_signals

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only lists the types of content returned. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it requires existing tracked accounts, whether any scanning is triggered, or how the 'real-time' claim relates to data freshness—leaving important agent-facing behaviors undocumented.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the returned resource types and the optional scope without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and communicates the core purpose 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 tool with one optional parameter and no required params, the description is reasonably complete, but with no output schema it should say more about the shape and granularity of the returned signals and events. It also leaves the relationship to tracked accounts and sibling signal-related tools unstated, which is a noticeable gap for an autonomous agent.

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 schema already fully documents the single optional 'company' parameter, so the description adds little beyond restating the filter concept. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies; the phrase 'specific requested companies' reinforces flexibility but does not add semantics about value format or behavior.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies precise resources: real-time news signals, executive inflection events, and tailored conversation openers, scoped to tracked accounts or an optional requested company. It is clearbut does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similar sibling 'territory_preview_signals', so some sibling-routing burden remains on the agent.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'territory_preview_signals' or 'territory_trigger_scan'. The optional company filter gives scope context, but the description lacks conditions, exclusions, or reference to sibling tools that would help an agent choose correctly.

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