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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact: the result is 'effective' access including inheritance, i.e. resolved rather than raw share records. It says nothing about permissions required or output shape, so this is a modest add rather than a rich disclosure.

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 no filler; the subject (effective access) leads and the three dimensions follow. Nothing redundant.

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 read tool with rich annotations, the description is close to adequate: it names what the call inspects. But with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, it should say more about the return payload and the accepted resourceType values. Minimum viable rather than complete.

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 carries the burden and does not compensate at all: neither resourceId nor resourceType is mentioned. The enum values live in the schema, but the description gives no hint about which resource types are supported or how the type affects the lookup.

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?

States a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('effective access to a geospatial resource') and enumerates what is returned: visibility, inheritance, and individual/organization shares. An agent can distinguish this from mutation siblings like resource_share_grant or resource_change_visibility, but it never names or contrasts with the closest read sibling (geobble_resource_view), so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The description does not say whether to call this before granting a share, after changing visibility, or instead of resource_view; the agent must infer the timing from the word 'effective' alone.

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