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

The readOnly annotation covers the safety profile, so the description only needs to add contextual depth. It lists the record components (timeline, detections per sensor, peak power, aircraft observed, etc.), which goes beyond annotation and tells the agent what to expect.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then provides source context and a colon-separated list of contents. Every clause earns its place; no wasted words.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by enumerating the expected record components. It is sufficiently complete for a one-parameter read-only fetch, though it does not address potential 'not found' cases or output structure details.

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 must carry the load for the sole parameter. It explains what a slug is and where to obtain it (fire_archive_search or kanari.io URL), though it does not mention the min/max length constraints or error behavior for invalid slugs.

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?

Clearly describes a full record retrieval for archived fires, identified by slug, and lists exact contents. The 'archived' qualifier distinguishes it from active_fires, and the reference to fire_archive_search distinguishes it from the search tool.

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?

States that the slug comes from fire_archive_search or a kanari.io URL, strongly implying when to use this tool: after a slug is obtained. The archived-fire framing gives context, though it does not explicitly exclude active_fires or say when not to use it.

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