fire_risk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the meaning of the returned scale (1 reduzido through 5 máximo), which is genuinely valuable, but it says nothing about data source/freshness, behavior for unknown or ambiguous municipality names, or whether tomorrow's value can be unavailable. For a lookup tool the risk is low, so a 3 is fair.

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?

Front-loaded one-liner followed by compact Args and Scale blocks; every line carries information the agent needs. The format is efficient, with only minor redundancy between the title term and the parenthetical Portuguese name.

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 an output schema present, the description need not describe return shape, and both parameters are documented, so the essentials for correct invocation are covered. Gaps are secondary: no note on data freshness or handling of invalid municipality names, which matter more for a lookup whose failures may be silent.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: municipality is defined as a concelho name with two concrete examples ('Sintra', 'Monchique'), and day is mapped to explicit values (0 = today, 1 = tomorrow). It stops just short of stating what the default is or what happens for out-of-range day values, which the schema's default hint only partially covers.

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 first sentence names a specific resource (wildfire danger / RCM / risco de incêndio rural), its geographic scope (municipality), and its temporal scope (today or tomorrow), with the Portuguese term in parentheses for disambiguation. No sibling tool covers this domain, so the agent can route to it unambiguously.

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?

Usage is implied by the domain (ask about fire danger, get the level) but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no reference to adjacent siblings like weather_forecast or weather_warnings that an agent might otherwise pick. The day parameter hints at the two supported timeframes but that is a parameter rule, not usage routing.

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