firms_active_country

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 mentions 'Queries' and 'Returns', implying a read operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits like authorization needs, rate limits, or potential side effects. This is adequate but not detailed.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value: first defines the main action, second specifies the country code format and return fields. No unnecessary words.

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 description covers the main return fields (brightness, confidence, FRP, timing) but does not specify limits on number of results, pagination, or error behavior. Given the absence of an output schema, these details would be helpful but not critical for a straightforward query 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context about return fields (brightness, confidence, FRP, timing) and country code format, but this is supplementary and not essential for understanding parameters themselves.

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 verb 'Query', the resource 'NASA FIRMS active fire detections', and the scope 'within a country'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like firms_active_area and firms_active_point by specifying country-level queries.

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 explains the use of ISO country codes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as firms_active_area for arbitrary regions. There is no guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites.

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