territory_preview_signals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'Preview' implies a read-only, non-committal operation, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not state whether authentication is required, whether any state changes occur, or how real-time data fetching behaves.

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 sentence with a front-loaded verb and resource. It contains no filler, no repetition of schema details, and every word contributes meaning.

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 two-parameter preview tool, the schema covers the inputs completely. But with no output schema, the description could say more about what the returned signals/headlines look like and whether a login is a prerequisite; still, the core usage is understandable.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description only says 'given company' and adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 opens with a specific verb ('Preview'), names the resource ('qualified news signals and headlines'), and scopes the use case ('before adding it to your territory'). This timing clearly distinguishes it from post-add signal retrieval like territory_get_signals, even without naming that sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'before adding it to your territory' tells the agent exactly where this tool fits in the workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as territory_get_signals for already-tracked companies.

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