get_customer_geographic_access_scope

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the hierarchy-root authentication requirement, the constraint that only root/child targets are valid, and the notable disclosure that targets outside the hierarchy are 'returned as not found' rather than as errors. The UsersManager permission requirement is also valuable. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four sentences with the core purpose front-loaded in the second sentence and the prerequisite/behavior details packed efficiently after it. The opening sentence 'Manage country-based access to tenants in your customer hierarchy' is a slightly redundant umbrella over the tool name, but it does add domain context that helps differentiate from unrelated sibling tools.

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 description covers prerequisites, hierarchy constraints, permission requirements, and not-found error behavior, which is strong for a simple get-by-id tool. However, with no output schema, the return shape of 'the geographic scope' is never defined (e.g., allowed countries, custom regions), leaving the agent uncertain about what the response contains.

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 only 33% (customerContext is described; targetCustomerId and X-Tenant-Id are not). The description partially compensates by implying targetCustomerId must be a root or child customer and that X-Tenant-Id should identify the hierarchy-root tenant, but it doesn't fully clarify parameter formats or how targetCustomerId relates to customerContext.

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 verb and resource: 'Returns the geographic scope for a target customer.' This clearly distinguishes it from the update/delete customer-scope siblings and the user-scope sibling by the 'get' action and customer focus. The opening sentence 'Manage country-based access to tenants' is a broader umbrella that slightly dilutes precision, preventing a 5.

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 applicability conditions: the authenticated tenant must be the hierarchy root, the target must be the root or a child customer, and the UsersManager permission is required. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions (e.g., 'for user-level scope use get_user_geographic_access_scope'), so it stops short of a 5.

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