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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes one extra behavioral fact, that only *accessible* resources can be fetched, implying permission-gated failures, but says nothing about error behavior or what a returned resource contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb, scope and enumerated kinds in the first clause. No filler, though the parenthetical '(source)' is slightly awkward phrasing rather than an addition of real information.

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 two-parameter federated getter with no output schema, the description covers what kinds exist but omits what is actually returned (full resource vs summary), identifier format, and how inaccessible/invalid identifiers are reported. Adequate but with clear gaps for an agent deciding between this and the kind-specific getters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for two undocumented parameters. It does usefully clarify that 'source' means a dataset, which is the least self-evident enum label, but it says nothing about the identifier's format (ID vs slug vs URL) despite the 1-256 char constraint.

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 names a specific verb (Get) and resource (accessible geospatial resource) and enumerates the four supported kinds, which map exactly to the schema enum. It stops short of differentiating itself from close siblings such as geobble_resource_view, geobble_map_get, and geobble_resource_access_get, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate on the description alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus geobble_search (to find an identifier) or the more specific geobble_map_get / geobble_resource_view siblings. The word 'accessible' hints that visibility matters, but no prerequisite or exclusion is spelled out.

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