guerrilla-franchising-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool is 'Built by a former JP Morgan analyst' and includes an example ('Item 7 deep-detail included — where the $321K was hidden'), which adds some behavioral context about expertise and depth. However, it lacks details on output format, limitations, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently lists capabilities and usage examples. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the inclusion of the analyst background and specific dollar example adds some length that could be trimmed for pure conciseness.

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 tool's complexity (decoding legal documents with optional parameters) and no output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, and parameter mapping. However, without annotations or output details, it lacks information on behavioral traits like response format or limitations, which could be more complete.

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 both parameters well. The description adds value by explaining the tool's capabilities ('deep-dives on specific Items or curated guides by focus area'), which clarifies how the parameters (fdd_item_number and focus_area) map to these options. However, it doesn't provide additional syntax or format details 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Decode any Franchise Disclosure Document' and elaborates on what it provides ('Explains all 23 FDD Items with deep-dives on specific Items or curated guides by focus area'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on FDD decoding rather than other franchise-related analyses like cost breakdowns or red flags.

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 includes explicit usage guidance: 'Use when someone asks: how to read an FDD, FDD explained, what is a franchise disclosure document, FDD Item 19, franchise fees FDD Item 6, franchise territory FDD.' This clearly indicates when to invoke this tool versus alternatives, addressing common user queries.

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