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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, but the description adds substantial behavioral nuance beyond them: the meaning of a thermal anomaly (flaring, upset or fire read alike), that fires between passes are missed, that silence is never proof of nothing, and the curated ~110-site scope with FIRMS starting from each site's watch-begin date.

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?

Well organized with clear 'Use when:' and 'Not for:' segments and a compact 'Limits:' coda, front-loading what the tool covers. The opening sentence is dense to the point of being a run-on, which slightly hurts scannability, but nearly every clause carries needed domain meaning.

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 an output schema present, return formatting needn't be explained, and the description covers scope, caveats, interpretation limits and coverage boundaries. Nothing an agent needs to call or correctly interpret results is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents q, id, kind and country with examples and patterns. The description adds domain framing (site's own normal, trailing 8-week median) but no parameter syntax or interaction detail beyond what the schema carries; baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (sites watched by satellite) and enumerates exactly what is covered: refineries, terminals, LNG plants, depots and oil ports, with named geographies. The satellite data streams (FIRMS thermal anomalies, Sentinel-2 imagery, Sentinel-1 vessel counts) make it instantly distinguishable from the market/finance siblings.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use when:' example queries and an explicit 'Not for: strike confirmation' exclusion. It even names the domain-specific alternatives the agent should reason about (thermal anomaly vs fire, images as context not damage evidence), leaving little to inference.

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