guerrilla-franchising-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is 'built from 81+ franchise placements' and available in two languages, but lacks critical behavioral details such as whether it generates personalized advice, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format is (since no output schema exists). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specific coverage areas and operational details. Every sentence adds value (e.g., language availability and data source), though it could be slightly more streamlined by integrating the language detail earlier.

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 complexity of visa guidance and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a document, structured data, or advice), how it uses the parameters to tailor output, or any behavioral constraints. This makes it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation and results.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain why 'country_of_origin' matters for treaty eligibility or how 'available_capital' influences recommendations). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.

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 the tool's purpose: to provide an E-2 visa franchise investment guide covering specific topics like investment requirements, USCIS criteria, franchise categories, FDD items, and red flags. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on visa-specific guidance rather than general franchise evaluation (e.g., vs. gf_evaluate_franchise_fit) or cost breakdowns (e.g., vs. gf_franchise_cost_breakdown).

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 foreign nationals from treaty countries seeking E-2 visa approval through franchise investment, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gf_franchise_vs_startup or gf_validate_fdd_investment_range. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the context somewhat open-ended.

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