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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit beyond that by signaling that the result is *effective* (computed) access including inheritance — meaning inherited/organizational permissions are folded in, which an agent would otherwise not assume. It stops short of stating permission prerequisites or behavior when the caller lacks access.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the verb and payoff, listing the three facets in a natural order. No padding, though the colon-fragment style drops the subject and reads slightly clipped.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description usefully previews what comes back (visibility, inheritance, shares). However it omits whether the caller needs owner/admin rights and how an unshared or inaccessible resource is reported, which matters for a permission-inspection tool.

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% and the description compensates minimally: it says 'geospatial resource' but never explains that resourceId is a UUID or that resourceType must match the actual resource kind. The six enum values are self-explanatory in the schema, but the pairing constraint between the two required parameters is undocumented anywhere.

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) plus the facets revealed: visibility, inheritance, and individual/organization shares. An agent can distinguish it from the mutation siblings resource_share_grant/resource_share_revoke and resource_change_visibility by the read-only 'inspect' framing, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'inspect effective access' suggests a read-only diagnostic to run before sharing or visibility changes, but the description never says when to choose this over resource_view, resource_share_grant, or resource_change_visibility. No preconditions or exclusions are given.

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