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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses several important behaviors: the default use of LiveDataLink's D1 mirror versus the NASA Area API when live mode is requested, the support for limit/offset pagination, and the exact fields returned in results. It also includes an important caveat that a hotspot is a satellite thermal anomaly and not confirmation of a wildfire, advising verification with incident authorities and NASA FIRMS. This goes far beyond the annotations and gives the agent essential context for interpreting output.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information: the core purpose, data-source behavior, returned fields and pagination, and the caveat/limitation. The purpose is front-loaded, and there is no redundancy or filler. The structure allows an agent to quickly grasp what the tool does and how to use it.

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 tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the query scope (bounding box), data sources and modes, pagination, return field details, the key limitation on bounding-box size, and a caution about interpretation. The only missing element is error handling, but the schema already documents parameters such as data_mode and its API-key requirement. No critical operational detail appears to be 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the bounding-box size limit (60x30 degrees) that affects the west/south/east/north parametersaine and noting pagination via limit/offset. These contextual details are not present in the schema descriptions, so the description meaningfully enhances parameter understanding despite the schema already being complete.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb 'Search' and a concrete resource: 'NASA FIRMS satellite active-fire/hotspot detections inside a bounded latitude/longitude box.' This clearly distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which target satellite fire detections. It also enumerates the result fields, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool (searching hotspot detections within a bounding box) and gives an explicit constraint: the interactive bounding box is limited to 60 degrees wide by 30 degrees high, instructing users to split larger regions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the specificity of the resource and the bounding-box guidance are sufficient for an agent to select it appropriately.

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