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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It never states whether the tool reads or writes, what the response looks like, or what "edge-case handling" actually means in behavior; instead it describes the artifact ("includes the complete prompt, usage guide") rather than the tool's operation.

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?

It is short (three sentences) and not padded with redundant detail, but the opening line "Turn expertise into output" earns nothing and the framing as a "prompt pack" front-loads product copy rather than capability. The actual functional statement is absent rather than merely compressed.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain both the action and the return, and it does neither. For a diagnostic tool sitting in a large family of near-duplicate ROI tools, an agent has no basis to call it correctly or to prefer it over roi-analyze-tool.

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 documents "query" fully. The description adds no meaning about how the query scopes the analysis, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Turn expertise into output" and "helps restaurant and brand teams produce professional results in minutes" are marketing claims, not a statement of what the tool does. The only concrete noun is the tool's own name ("roi diag tool prompt pack"), so the description essentially restates the title without saying what operation is performed or what a "diagnosis" produces.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the many ROI siblings (roi-analyze-tool, roi-board-tool, roi-formula-tool, roi-tpl-tool) or the near-identical *-diag-tool family. The only audience hint is "restaurant and brand teams," which does not tell an agent which situation selects this tool over another.

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