Show Project Region

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description does not elaborate on behavioral traits. Critically, the description omits why page and per_page parameters exist (which are unusual for a 'show' operation) and refers to 'Company Settings' which is inconsistent with the tool name. This contradicts the expected behavior of a single-resource retrieval.

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 concise at three sentences, including required parameters and API endpoint. However, the redundant mention of 'Company Settings' wastes precision. It is front-loaded but could be more efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should explain return structure and address pagination. It does not, leaving ambiguity about what 'full details' includes. The sibling list suggests contrast with list operations, but no usage context is provided. The description is incomplete for a complex input schema with 4 parameters.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. However, the description repeats only the required parameters (company_id, id) and does not add meaning for page/per_page, which are present but unexplained. The presence of pagination parameters in a show endpoint is confusing and the description provides no clarification, dropping the score below baseline.

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 shows detail on a specified Project Region and uses a specific identifier. However, it confusingly refers to 'Company Settings' instead of Project Region, and the verb 'show' is clear but the resource name is slightly misaligned. This is still clear enough for an agent to understand the primary function.

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 usage when you have a specific ID, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'list_project_regions' or provide when-not scenarios. The instruction to 'fetch the full details of a specific Company Settings' gives context but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives.

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