get_geographic_access_custom_region

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the required 'UsersManager permission' and the ownership scope 'owned by the authenticated tenant.' However, it does not describe return format, error cases, or pagination, and the vague 'Manage' wording slightly muddies the read-only nature. No annotation contradiction is present.

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 has two sentences and is not excessively long, but the first sentence 'Manage country-based access to tenants in your customer hierarchy' is a generic mission statement that does not directly describe the getter operation and could mislead. The second sentence is concise and useful. Overall it is acceptable but not tightly scoped.

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 read-only get-by-ID tool with strong annotations, the description covers permission and ownership. But it does not define what a 'custom region' is, how the customRegionId should be obtained (e.g., from list_geographic_access_custom_regions), or how X-Tenant-Id and customerContext interplay. Given the existence of many closely related sibling tools, this is a noticeable gap.

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%, with only 'customerContext' described in the schema. The description does not explain 'customRegionId' or 'X-Tenant-Id' at all. The parameter names give some clues, but the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving an agent without a clear understanding of required tenant context or how to obtain the customRegionId.

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 return action: 'Returns a custom region owned by the authenticated tenant.' This is a clear verb+resource pairing. However, the opening sentence 'Manage country-based access to tenants in your customer hierarchy' is a broad domain statement rather than a precise operation, and no sibling tool is named for differentiation, so it doesn't fully earn 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of list_geographic_access_custom_regions, create_geographic_access_custom_region, or related geographic access scope tools. It mentions a permission requirement but no usage context or exclusions, so an agent is left to infer the appropriate invocation scenario.

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