queimadas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely valuable behavioral trait: counts come from the AQUA_M-T reference satellite because other satellites double-count the same fire. It omits permission requirements, rate limits, and error behavior, so the disclosure is partial.

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 with the purpose, followed by the satellite caveat and a compact Args block. The satellite explanation earns its space by clarifying what the numbers mean; no filler sentences.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the return structure needs no explanation, and both parameters plus the aggregation semantics are covered. Only usage guidance is missing, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'uf' is defined as a state abbreviation with examples ("MT", "PA") and 'data' as a YYYY-MM-DD date with a default of yesterday. This resolves ambiguity the bare schema leaves (including the empty-string default on 'data').

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?

States a specific resource (fire hotspots from INPE Queimadas) with a clear temporal scope (one day) and grouping (municipality and biome). It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling tool, but among agricultural/economic siblings its identity is unmistakable.

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 never says when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as needing a valid state abbreviation or coverage limitations. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and data source.

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