calfire_incidents

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds value by listing the specific fields returned (name, location, acres burned, containment, etc.) and the update frequency for active fires, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 three concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second summarizes return fields, and the third notes update cadence. Every sentence adds value with no wasted 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?

For a simple two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, modes, return content, and update behavior. It could explicitly mention that historical data starts from year 2000, but that is already captured in the schema's minimum constraint.

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% with descriptions for both year and active. The description does not elaborate on parameter syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Get California wildfire incidents from CAL FIRE', a specific verb+resource combination that clearly states the tool's function. It further specifies the two modes (active/historical by year), distinguishing it from the sibling tools, none of which deal with wildfire incidents.

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 clear context on the two modes (active fires vs. historical by year) and notes that active fires update frequently during fire season. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, though the unique domain makes such exclusions less necessary.

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