franchisepulse

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'AI-synthesized' and lists endpoint costs, but fails to specify whether operations are read-only, destructive, require authentication, or have rate limits. The description focuses on capabilities rather than side effects or constraints.

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 well-structured with a header, coverage note, and bullet-point list of endpoints. Each endpoint description is concise. The only minor inefficiency is the incomplete sentence at the end ('and franchise br'), but overall it is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 15 parameters, no output schema, and no endpoint-parameter mapping, the description is incomplete. It does not specify which parameters apply to which endpoints, return formats, error handling, or pagination. An agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional information.

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 descriptions are minimal (just parameter names). The tool description adds meaning only for the 'action' parameter by enumerating endpoint purposes. Other parameters (lang, franchisor, etc.) receive no additional explanation, leaving the agent to infer their usage from context. Given 100% schema coverage but shallow descriptions, the tool description adds limited semantic value.

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 clearly states 'Global franchise intelligence API' and lists nine specific endpoints, each with a one-line purpose. This immediately conveys the tool's domain (franchise) and scope, distinguishing it from sibling 'pulse' tools that cover other domains.

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 description implies usage for franchise-related queries (discovery, analysis, etc.) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other pulse tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, not-to-use scenarios, or comparative advice.

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