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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered structurally. The description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that results are store-scoped and reflect a specific configuration rather than a generic item, but it discloses nothing about rate limits, auth, or failure modes. Adequate but not rich, so a 3.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence delivers the resource, scope, and both input modes with no filler. It is dense but every clause carries information, so it earns its place.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies scope and the two usage shapes for a five-parameter tool, leaving only minor gaps around edge cases such as invalid store/product combinations.

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 every parameter including the base+size pairing and the toppings-only-with-size+base rule. The description's framing of 'named default configuration' versus 'exact size/crust/topping combination' largely restates that logic rather than adding new syntax or constraints, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific resource (calorie information) and scopes it precisely to one Domino's product at one store, then disambiguates the two supported shapes: a named item's default configuration versus a build-your-own pizza's exact size/crust/topping combination. This lets an agent distinguish it from dominos_menu (full menu listing) and dominos_customization (options catalog) without opening either schema.

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 two modes imply when the tool applies (you want calories for a specific configured item), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative or exclusion. Nothing tells the agent whether to reach for dominos_menu or dominos_customization first, so the usage signal is only implied.

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