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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations: the archive source, supported time windows, the 'all since 2026-08-03' bound, and the ready-to-cite sentence with source attribution. It discloses the main behavioral characteristics without contradicting the annotations.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and packs the behavior into a compact list. It has no filler, though the long comma-separated enumeration could be slightly harder to parse quickly.

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 no output schema present, the description appropriately enumerates the returned items: counts, peak power, daily series, affected regions, and biggest fires with URLs, plus the citation sentence. It omits the default period of 7d and the precise month-parameter condition, but those are available in the schema.

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%, so the description compensates by spelling out period values, the ISO-2 country form, and the worldwide-or-single-country scope. It only indirectly conveys the month parameter's required-when-month relationship and format, which are 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns aggregated wildfire statistics from kanari's archive, with explicit period and geography options, and enumerates the metrics included. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like active_fires or fire_details by emphasizing aggregate, citable figures.

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 implies use when aggregated statistics or citable figures are needed, and it lists valid period and country inputs. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, leaving the decision rule to inference.

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