nasa_firms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it only states 'fire data' without explaining what the tool does (e.g., returns fire detection points, historical data), any constraints (e.g., rate limits, data freshness), or output format. This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and no output schema.

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 concise with a single phrase, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes no words but fails to provide essential details, making it more of a placeholder than a helpful description. It is front-loaded but lacks substance.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or any behavioral aspects like data sources or limitations. Without annotations or output schema, the description should compensate but does not.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions (latitude, longitude, days). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying fire data retrieval, which is already suggested by the tool name. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema carries the burden.

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 'NASA Fire Information for Resource Management System - fire data' restates the tool name 'nasa_firms' and adds only generic context about fire data. It lacks a specific verb (e.g., 'retrieve', 'query', 'fetch') and does not distinguish this tool from its many NASA-related siblings, such as 'nasa_eonet' or 'nasa_donki', which also handle environmental or space data. The purpose is vague and tautological.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'nasa_eonet' (which might also handle fire or environmental data) for comparison. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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