get_fire_risk

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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnly and idempotent. The description adds transparency by disclosing the error result for out-of-range coordinates or unreachable SMHI API, and by clarifying that the indices are unitless values, not raw weather readings. This goes beyond the safety profile provided by 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 longer than the minimal but every sentence contributes: purpose, usage, outputs, error handling, and coverage. Its structure is logical and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values. It enumerates the fire risk class, indices, grass fire risk, dryness class, weather variables, and precipitation sums, plus error behavior and geographical coverage. This is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect.

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 already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds one extra semantic: the forest dryness class is only available for the daily period, which is not in the schema's period description. This gives the agent useful parameter-dependent behavior information.

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 retrieves a wildfire/forest fire risk forecast, explicitly naming the Canadian Fire Weather Index system and the specific output types. It distinguishes itself from sibling general forecast tools by directing users to use this when the question is specifically about fire danger.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this instead of the general forecast tools when the question is specifically about fire danger.' It also gives a coverage area and notes error conditions, helping the agent decide when to invoke it.

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