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

Annotations already signal read-only and open-world behavior, and the description adds useful context beyond those hints: the archive starts on 2026-08-03, only significant wildfires are included, and results link to a permanent page URL. It does not discuss pagination or result ordering details, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden on the description.

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 and front-loaded: it opens with the core search capability, then lists filter dimensions, then gives concrete query examples. Every sentence adds value and nothing is redundant with the schema.

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 search tool with nine parameters, no output schema, and read-only/open-world annotations, the description gives enough orientation: filter types, output URL behavior, and example queries. Minor gaps remain around the return payload shape and the exact role of limit/order, but the overall definition is functional and not missing critical information.

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 only 33%, but the description helps compensate by mapping user intent to parameters: 'ISO-2 country' clarifies country, 'date range or month' covers from/to and month, 'minimum detections or power' maps to min_detections and min_frp_mw, and 'status' covers the status enum. It does not explain limit or order, but those have adequate schema-level defaults and enums.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('kanari's archive of significant wildfires'), and the key filter dimensions. It distinguishes itself from a live-fire tool by emphasizing 'archive' and the explicit start date, and the example queries make the tool's role immediately identifiable.

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 gives concrete example queries for when to use this tool: historical fire lookups by country/month, biggest fires, and checking whether a fire is still active. It does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like active_fires or fire_details, but the use cases make the intended context reasonably clear.

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