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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful auth prerequisite, but says nothing about aggregation granularity, currency, whether zero-revenue organizations appear, or cost/pagination behavior.

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?

Two short clauses, the auth restriction front-loaded and the scope immediately after. The raw HTTP endpoint is arguably redundant filler but is brief enough not to harm scannability.

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 two-parameter read-only report, annotations plus a full-coverage schema cover most of what an agent needs. With no output schema, the description should say more about the shape of the returned revenue summary, and it does not.

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% with both date parameters documented including format and inclusive meaning. The description only restates 'for a date range,' adding no syntax or boundary semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: total revenue per franchise organization for a date range, backed by an explicit endpoint. This is clearly a reporting tool and is distinguishable by domain from the entity get/list siblings, though it doesn't name any sibling directly.

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 'Corporate tokens only' constraint tells the agent this will fail with non-corporate credentials, which implies usage context. However, no alternatives are named and no when-not-to-use guidance is given relative to the many list/get tools in the sibling set.

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