crehq_company_franchise

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It adds provenance ('Sourced and multi-source-verified from state franchise registries') and a caveat ('where disclosed'). However, it doesn't disclose behavior when no franchise data exists, potential errors, or response format, leaving gaps in behavioral expectations.

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?

At two sentences, the description is efficient and front-loaded with the action. The second sentence adds contextual value through sourcing and audience, though 'the hard numbers...' is slightly promotional. Overall, every sentence contributes meaning.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter schema and no output schema, the description adequately lists the returned data categories and their sourcing. It doesn't describe exact response structure, but the listed items give a good mental model for a franchise financials lookup 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter, including its source ('from crehq_companies_search'). The description adds no additional parameter-level details, so it meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Retrieve'), names the exact resource ('FDD-derived financials for a brand'), and enumerates key data fields (franchise fees, royalty rates, total initial investment ranges, Item 19). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like crehq_company_real_estate or crehq_company_credit_signals.

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?

While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the description establishes clear use context: 'an analyst, investor, or prospective franchisee needs to underwrite a concept.' It also notes 'where disclosed,' signaling when data may be absent. No explicit exclusions are given, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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