deepstate_firms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses only the source dataset and geographic window. It says nothing about read-only behavior, data latency/freshness (important for satellite hotspot detections), or whether results are point detections versus aggregated clusters.

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?

One tight sentence with the dataset and scope front-loaded and no filler. Brevity is achieved partly by leaning on unexplained acronyms, which is the only structural weakness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the dataset identity is clear. However, for a geospatial feed with a configurable detail level and no annotations, the definition leaves the agent guessing about the one parameter it must supply.

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 0% and the single 'detail' parameter (default 'short') is completely unexplained. The description does not say what values it takes, what changes between short and verbose output, or what the default implies.

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 names a concrete dataset (FIRMS fire hotspots) and a concrete geographic scope (the Ukrainian theater), which is enough to distinguish it from generic siblings like fire_perimeters. It loses a point because 'FIRMS' and 'theater' are unexpanded jargon and it never explicitly contrasts itself with the similar-sounding fire tools in the sibling list.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this over fire_perimeters, disaster_alerts, or the other DeepState-prefixed tools. The scope hint ('Ukrainian theater') implies a use case, but no exclusion or alternative is named.

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