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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the deliverable ('outputs a reusable store-opening template') and the internal phase structure, which is real behavioral context, but it never states what the call actually returns (a plan document? a template file?), how long/structured the output is, or whether any preconditions apply.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the domain and then the deliverable phases; no filler or marketing fluff. The dense colon-list is slightly scan-unfriendly but every item is substantive.

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?

Scope is well covered, but with no output schema and no annotations, the definition leaves the agent guessing on output format and on how this differs from the many adjacent store-opening/launch tools in the catalog. For a one-parameter generator that is borderline adequate rather than complete.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains 'query' fully. The description adds nothing about how a query should be phrased or what it scopes, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns only the baseline.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('New-store launch & ramp-up marketing for chain restaurants') and enumerates the concrete phases delivered (D-30/15/7 pre-heat, soft-open stress testing, 3-day launch blast, 30/60/90 ramp targets, rating cold-start). It implicitly separates itself from checklist/calculator siblings by being a marketing-and-ramp playbook, but it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the domain framing — an agent can infer 'call this when a chain restaurant is opening a new store.' There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to close alternatives such as store-opening-checklist, fnb-new-product-launch, or store-campaign-planner, which sit in the same neighborhood.

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