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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: automatic geographic matching, a 72-hour window, inclusion of positive and negative gaps, median aggregation, and source article links. This meaningfully clarifies what the tool does beyond the annotation and does not contradict it.

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?

The description is compact, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place. It states the core computation, the aggregation method, important exclusions, and output availability in a few lines without repetition.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key semantics: time window, positive/negative gaps, median aggregation, caveats, and source links. It does not describe exact return formatting, but that is a minor gap for this tool.

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 0%, so the description should compensate for parameter meaning, but it never mentions the 'limit' parameter or how it affects results. The schema does define min, max, and default, which gives some baseline understanding, but the description adds no value for the parameter.

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 title 'Measured lead over press coverage' plus the description makes the tool's purpose clear: it computes median time gaps between satellite and press timestamps over 72 hours. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the caveat 'Not kanari alert publication time, not proof of distinct fires or a lead over emergency services' helps an agent understand the intended scope.

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 no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like fire_archive_search or wildfire_stats. It explains what the computation is and what it is not, but does not state selection conditions or exclusions relative to siblings.

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