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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context on currency (Peruvian soles) and catalog contents, but says nothing about pagination or result size for a full-catalog fetch.

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 tightly written sentences with zero waste; the resource and currency are front-loaded and the disambiguation note follows immediately.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers scope, currency, and routing. For a simple one-param catalog read it is nearly complete, with only minor gaps around result volume or ordering.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single optional 'category' filter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics about the filter beyond that, which is the baseline when the schema does the work.

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 Peru priced menu) with scope (full catalog with categories, images, prices) and currency. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling international menu tool, so an agent can route correctly 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 line 'Peru runs its own platform, separate from the international menu tool' gives clear routing context that tells the agent to prefer this over papajohns_intl_menu for Peru. It stops short of naming further alternatives or stating explicit exclusions, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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