get_user_geographic_access_scope

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: out-of-hierarchy targets are 'returned as not found' rather than causing an error, and root-tenant authentication is required. The 'Returns' statement matches readOnlyHint=true, so there is no contradiction.

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 no filler; the constraints and permission are packed efficiently. The first sentence 'Manage country-based access...' is a category label that adds little value and mildly clashes with the read-only nature of the tool, which keeps this below 5.

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 permissions, hierarchy requirements, and not-found behavior, which is solid for a simple read. However, there is no output schema, and the description never hints at what the returned 'geographic scope' contains (e.g., country codes vs custom regions), leaving the agent to guess the response shape.

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 25%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the relationship between userId and targetCustomerId (the user belongs to the target customer) and constrains targetCustomerId to the hierarchy. However, X-Tenant-Id is left unexplained and no format guidance is given for the two required ID parameters.

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 clear action and resource: 'Returns the geographic scope assigned to a user who belongs to the target customer.' This distinguishes it from the sibling get_customer_geographic_access_scope (user-level vs customer-level scope). The opening word 'Manage' is slightly misleading for a read-only tool and prevents 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 concrete applicability constraints: the authenticated tenant must be the hierarchy root, the target must be within that hierarchy, and the UsersManager permission is required. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when to prefer a sibling tool, so it stops short of 5.

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