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 covers 'hidden costs' and 'financing options', which adds some behavioral context beyond basic functionality. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only analysis tool, what format the breakdown is provided in, or any limitations of the 81-deal dataset.

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. The second sentence adds valuable scope information, and the usage guidelines are efficiently presented as a list of example queries. There's minimal wasted text, though the query examples could be slightly more concise.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good purpose and usage context but lacks important behavioral details. It doesn't explain what format the cost breakdown is provided in, whether it's interactive or static, or any limitations of the analysis. Given the complexity of franchise cost analysis, more completeness would be helpful.

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. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline is 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, even though the description doesn't compensate with additional parameter context.

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 break down the true cost of buying a franchise, including hidden costs. It specifies the scope (81+ deals across major categories) and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on cost analysis rather than evaluation, guidance, 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 explicitly lists when to use this tool with specific query examples: 'how much does it cost to buy a franchise', 'franchise fees explained', 'total franchise investment', 'best franchises under 100k', etc. This provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate versus its siblings.

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