fire_perimeters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose useful context: active polygons, source NIFC/WFIGS, and inclusion of incident name and acreage. It does not cover freshness, geographic scope, or update cadence.

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 with the key identifying information front-loaded. There is no filler or 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?

The core purpose and source are clear, and an output schema exists, so return values need less explanation. However, the undocumented `detail` parameter and missing freshness/scope details leave meaningful gaps for a no-annotation 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?

The schema has one parameter, `detail`, with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain what `detail` controls or what values it accepts. The mention of incident name and size may hint at output detail but does not define 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 description names the specific dataset (active wildfire burn-area polygons), the source (NIFC/WFIGS), and its relationship to FIRMS hotspot points. This clearly distinguishes it from point-hotspot and broader disaster tools.

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?

It implies when the tool is useful by framing it as the AREA behind FIRMS hotspot points, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The usage context is present but not fully developed.

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