fires_near

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real operational context: it requires FIRMS_MAP_KEY, results are ordered nearest-first, Suomi-NPP deliveries stop 2026-11-02, and it is 'Not for safety-of-life decisions.' It does not say what a hotspot record contains, which is the main remaining gap.

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 purpose, then parameter mechanics, then operational caveats — a sensible ordering with essentially no filler sentences. Minor waste in restating schema constraints verbatim ('greater than 0 and at most 2500', 'integer from 1 to 5').

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 10-parameter, no-output-schema tool this covers the essentials an agent needs to call it correctly: auth requirement, mode selection, ordering, source default and deprecation, and a suitability caveat. It omits the date filter and gives no hint of the response shape, which for a tool with no output schema is a notable but not disqualifying gap.

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 carries the burden and mostly does: it explains both coordinate groups, radius_km units and bounds, day_range's 1-5 range, and source's default plus a deprecation note. The 'date' parameter (YYYY-MM-DD) is never mentioned in the description and is only inferable from the schema pattern, and the source enum values are not characterized.

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 with provenance ('Active fire hotspots from NASA FIRMS') and immediately defines the two query geometries (point radius vs. bounding box), which implicitly separates it from the country-scoped sibling fires_by_country. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the routing.

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 gives clear invocation guidance for two modes ('Pass latitude, longitude, and radius_km ... or west, south, east, and north') and explains point-query behavior, but never says when to prefer this over fires_by_country, nearby_hazards, or eonet_events. Usage is implied by parameter shape rather than stated.

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