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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: pricing is per-restaurant, currency varies by market, and cross-market price comparison is invalid. It does not discuss return format, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core scope and market list, then the pricing caveat. Every element is relevant and there is no filler, though the market enumeration makes it slightly dense.

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?

Output schema and annotations carry the return shape and safety profile, and the description supplies the domain-critical constraints (per-restaurant pricing, currency by market, no cross-market comparison). An agent has enough to call this correctly; only the routing to sibling menu tools is left implicit.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces store_id semantics ('prices are specific to this restaurant') and lists the same markets as the market enum, but adds no new syntax or value guidance beyond what the schema properties already document.

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 ('PER-RESTAURANT priced menu') and enumerates the exact covered markets (Chile, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Panama, Portugal, Spain), which implicitly distinguishes it from the per-country siblings like papajohns_colombia_menu or papajohns_poland_menu. It also specifies the returned content (pizzas with size/crust pricing, sides, drinks). It stops short of naming an alternative sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 (fetch a restaurant's menu in these markets) and one guardrail is given ('do not compare across markets'), which is useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use routing versus siblings such as papajohns_menu or the country-specific menus, and no pointer in the description to papajohns_intl_stores for obtaining store_id (that only appears in the schema).

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