territory_submit_feedback

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. 'Submit' implies a write operation, but the description does not state whether authentication is required, whether submission is idempotent, what side effects occur, or what response the agent should expect after a successful or failed submission.

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 with no filler. It names the action, the targets, and the purpose efficiently, and every phrase contributes to the agent's understanding.

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?

The tool is simple and its parameter schema is fully self-documenting, but there are no annotations and no output schema. The description omits behavioral context such as authentication requirements and expected response behavior, which an agent would need to handle the call gracefully. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 the input schema already documents all three parameters, including the enum values and the minimum message length. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond clarifying the domain objects the feedback refers to, which matches the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific action ('submit feedback') and identifies the exact targets: signals, recommendations, or conversation starters. It also indicates the intended outcome (improve intelligence relevance), which distinguishes it clearly from the sibling tools that search, preview, or manage tracked companies.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when a user wants to provide feedback on a signal, recommendation, or conversation starter. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but no sibling tool appears to serve a similar feedback purpose, so the context is sufficient.

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