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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context that this call has a UI side effect (renders an interactive grid), which annotations do not convey. It says nothing about pagination, result caps, or how the grid state interacts with later calls.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the usage hint. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing parameter and sibling guidance noted elsewhere.

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?

With 4 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and a sibling 'search' that overlaps in purpose, the description should do much more. An agent knows roughly what the tool does but not how to scope kinds, paginate results, or choose it over the plain search 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% across 4 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails: 'kinds', 'limit', 'offset', and the query string are never mentioned. The word 'Search' weakly implies a query parameter, but filtering, pagination, and the default limit of 12 are completely undocumented.

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 and resource ('Search accessible Geobble resources') plus a distinctive behavioral outcome ('render an interactive result grid'). However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'search' tool, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which search entry point to pick.

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?

'Use when visual selection would help the user' gives a contextual hint, but it is vague and leaves the key comparison implicit. The obvious alternative, the sibling 'search' tool, is never named, and there are no when-not conditions or prerequisites.

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