fires_by_country

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, and the description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: the upstream country endpoint is flagged unavailable and the tool surfaces the failure, an API key is required, and it is explicitly not for safety-of-life use. These are meaningful operational facts an agent needs; only the return/error shape is left unstated.

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?

Four tight sentences with the resource scope front-loaded and the critical unavailability warning prominent. Every sentence carries information; no filler, though the guidance could be marginally more organized.

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?

Covers the operational essentials (key requirement, current outage, non-safety-of-life caveat) but, with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, omits the meaning of the source enum and date parameter that an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 carry parameter meaning, yet it only addresses country (ISO alpha-3) and day_range (1-5). It says nothing about the date format or the 8-value source enum, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 concrete verb+resource (active fire hotspots from NASA FIRMS) scoped to a single ISO alpha-3 country, which implicitly distinguishes it from the nearby-geography sibling fires_near. Clear enough to select without opening the schema, though the contrast with fires_near is only implied.

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?

Provides useful constraints (day_range 1-5, requires FIRMS_MAP_KEY) and an important warning that the upstream endpoint is currently unavailable, but never names when to use this instead of fires_near or nearby_hazards. Usage is implied by scope rather than explicit routing.

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