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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the upstream source, the 48-hour freshness window, the hard 10°×10° size cap, and the ranking/unit of returned values. It doesn't say what happens when the bbox exceeds 10° (error vs. rejection), which is the one operational gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the usage and format guidance. Every clause carries information — source, window, limit, ordering, units, usage, format, example — with no 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 rich annotations, an output schema and full schema description coverage, the description needs only to frame the data and the input format, which it does. The only omission is failure behavior when the bounding box exceeds the 10° cap, which matters for an open-world remote query.

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%, so baseline would be 3, but the description goes further by calling out the ordering hazard explicitly ("longitude first") and supplying a second real-world example (Portugal) alongside the schema's Antalya example. That targets the single most common failure mode for bbox strings; the `locale` parameter is left to the schema.

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 verb and resource (satellite fire detections), plus the source (NASA FIRMS VIIRS), the temporal window (last 48 hours), the spatial scope (bounding box up to 10°×10°), the sort order (strongest first) and the unit (MW). No sibling tool in the list deals with fires, so the agent can identify this immediately.

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 a clear positive trigger with the recency constraint built in. It doesn't name an alternative or state exclusions, but no sibling covers fire detections, so the missing exclusion is low-risk.

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