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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: a hard 48-hour recency window, a 10°×10° size cap, strongest-first ordering, and FRP in megawatts — all of which shape how results should be interpreted and how big a box the agent may request.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with what the data is and how fresh it is, then the usage case and the bbox format in a parenthetical example. Zero filler.

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 values need no explanation, and the description covers source, recency, size limit, ordering, and units. It stops short of noting result caps or behavior when no detections exist, but that is a minor omission for this tool's complexity.

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 both parameters are already documented with ordering rules, an example, and enum values. The description repeats the west,south,east,north ordering with a second worked example (Portugal), which guards against a common lon/lat mix-up but adds no information the schema lacks — the 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 source (NASA FIRMS VIIRS), resource (satellite fire detections), and scope (last 48 hours, ≤10°×10° bbox, sorted strongest-first, FRP in MW). No sibling tool overlaps with wildfires, so the agent can identify it instantly.

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 it for wildfires right now near a place or in a country" gives clear temporal and spatial triggering context. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but there is no competing fire tool in the sibling list, so little is left ambiguous.

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