list_geographic_access_custom_regions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the operative verb 'Returns' aligns with that safety profile — no contradiction. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: the UsersManager permission requirement and the tenant-ownership scoping of results. The misleading 'Manage' opener creates mild tension with readOnlyHint but is overridden by the explicit 'Returns' statement.

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?

At roughly 30 words the description is appropriately sized, and the permission requirement earns its place. But the core listing action is not front-loaded — the opening sentence is a domain-level 'Manage' statement that is both redundant with the tool name and potentially misleading, while the actual function ('Returns...') is buried in sentence two.

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 list operation whose annotations already cover safety, the description is minimally adequate: it names the result scope and the required permission. But with no output schema, no pagination details, an unexplained domain term ('ready'), an undocumented X-Tenant-Id, and no differentiation within a large geographic-access sibling family, an agent is left with noticeable gaps.

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?

customerContext has a strong schema description covering the DoiT-employee vs direct-customer distinction, and the description's 'owned by the authenticated tenant' phrase loosely illuminates tenant-identity semantics. However, at exactly 50% schema coverage, X-Tenant-Id remains entirely undocumented in both schema and description, and the description does not compensate with parameter-level detail.

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 second sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the ready custom regions owned by the authenticated tenant,' which clearly identifies the listing action and distinguishes it from country-listing and single-region getter siblings. However, the opening sentence uses the family-level verb 'Manage country-based access to tenants,' which describes the whole CRUD domain rather than this specific tool, 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 a useful prerequisite ('Requires the UsersManager permission') and ownership scoping ('owned by the authenticated tenant'), which implies when this tool applies. However, it never explicitly routes away from near siblings such as list_geographic_access_countries or get_geographic_access_custom_region, so the when-to-use guidance is implied rather than stated.

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