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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content about the return payload (schema, provenance, freshness, sample rows), which goes beyond annotations, but says nothing about failure modes, permissions, or cost.

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 enumerating the four inspection aspects with no filler. Efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves no room for usage or behavioral framing.

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 read-only inspection tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description adequately signals the return content. It is incomplete on prerequisites (project scope, queryable vs non-queryable sources) and leaves projectId entirely unexplained.

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is 0% (projectId undocumented, input container undocumented), and the description provides no parameter meaning at all. The nested sourceId/sampleRows fields are self-documenting in the schema, but the description does nothing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb ("inspect") plus a precise list of what is inspected: attribute schema, provenance, freshness, and sample features of a dataset/source. This is concrete enough to distinguish it from write-oriented siblings. It stops short of naming which sibling it replaces (e.g. geobble_project_query_database), so it isn't 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives are mentioned. Nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over query_database, explore_collection, or source_update_metadata, nor what state the project/source must be in.

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