Papa John's full item x allergen matrix: every crust/sauce/cheese/meat/veggie option flagged for peanut, tree nut, egg, milk, wheat, soy, fish, shellfish, and sesame.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds scope detail (full matrix, every ingredient option, nine allergens) but says nothing about data currency or how complete/static the matrix is, so it adds only moderate value beyond the 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and coverage are stated immediately and every clause 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, the description needn't explain return values, and for a no-input read it covers what the matrix contains. It is essentially complete, missing only a note on freshness or relationship to the nutrition sibling.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The enumeration of ingredient categories and allergens does compensate slightly by clarifying the scope of the parameterless result.
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?
States a specific resource (Papa John's item x allergen matrix) and enumerates the exact option categories and the nine allergens covered, so the agent knows precisely what data this returns. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the nutrition sibling, keeping it just short of a 5.
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 the usage context (allergen lookup) but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to a sibling like papajohns_nutrition for non-allergen data. Usage is inferable but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
