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 nature is covered. The description adds that only 'active' promotions are returned and that dates/weekdays are included, but says nothing about freshness, caching, or market coverage limits beyond the schema.

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 names the resource, scope, and returned fields, followed by a compact colon list. Every clause carries information and nothing is wasted.

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 simple read-only lookup with an output schema and 100% documented params, the description is sufficient: scope, mode, and returned fields are all stated. Minor gap is the absence of any usage/exclusion guidance relative to sibling tools.

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% and both required params carry their enumerations there, so baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal meaning ('for delivery or pickup' loosely mapping to dispatch_method) and contributes no syntax or format detail 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 names a concrete resource ('Papa John's active promotions') scoped to 'an international market', and enumerates what each deal contains (headline product, description, artwork, weekdays, start/end dates). This clearly separates it from domestic deal/offer siblings by scope, though it never explicitly names an alternative tool.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource and the 'for delivery or pickup' framing, which hints at the dispatch_method choice. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of how it differs from sibling tools like papajohns_intl_offer or papajohns_deals.

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