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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the 48-hour detection window, the 10° size limit, strongest-first ordering, and FRP reported in MW — details an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the source and resource, then layers window, scope, ordering and unit. Nothing is redundant and nothing is missing.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough about returned content (fire detections, strongest first, MW) that an agent needs no further explanation of results. Annotations cover the safety profile. Nothing material is absent.

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 coverage is 100% and the single bbox parameter is fully documented in the schema, including pattern and an example. The description restates the 10° constraint but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

Names a specific resource (NASA FIRMS VIIRS satellite fire detections), the data window (last 48 hours), the geographic scope (bounding box up to 10°×10°), the sort order (strongest first), and the unit (FRP in MW). An agent can distinguish this instantly from every travel/fuel/visa sibling.

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?

The 48-hour recency window and the 10°×10° box cap effectively tell the agent when this tool applies and what it cannot cover, but no alternative tool is named or excluded — there simply isn't one in this sibling set. Clear context without explicit routing.

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