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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says it "Includes the complete prompt, usage guide, and edge-case handling," but does not disclose whether it retrieves or generates content, what permissions or side effects exist, or what the output format actually is.

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 text is short, but the opening "Turn expertise into output" is marketing filler rather than a front-loaded statement of purpose; the useful content is vague and not structured for tool selection.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify return content and appropriate invocation context. It only vaguely lists prompt, usage guide, and edge-case handling, leaving the agent unable to confidently distinguish or invoke it among many sibling template tools.

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% for the single optional query parameter, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's own "Optional user query to scope the analysis." Baseline 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?

Identifies a "cost tpl tool prompt pack" for restaurant and brand teams, but "Turn expertise into output" is vague and the description never states a concrete operation or distinguishes this from cost-analyze-tool, cost-board-tool, cost-diag-tool, or cost-formula-tool.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and it does not name alternatives among the cost-* tools or explain when to choose a template pack over an analysis/diagnostic sibling.

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