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

The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the data source is a filed FDD, the return includes page references and a filing link, and rooms/revenue drive yearly fee estimates.

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 description is two sentences and front-loads the tool's scope before listing returned fields. The long field list is justified because there is no output schema, though the first sentence is dense.

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 output schema, the description properly enumerates the returned data and explains how optional inputs affect estimates. Annotations cover safety, and schema covers parameters; the main gap is explicit sibling selection guidance.

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%, so the schema already documents brand, rooms, and rooms_revenue including defaults. The description adds purpose for rooms and rooms revenue, explaining they produce yearly percent and per-room fees, but adds no syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

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 states a specific resource—one hotel brand's franchise costs from its FDD—and enumerates the fee types and investment data returned. It implicitly distinguishes itself from compare_franchise_costs by scoping to one brand, but it does not name that sibling 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?

It tells the agent to provide rooms and rooms revenue to obtain yearly fee estimates, which clarifies optional input usage. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus compare_franchise_costs or when not to use it.

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