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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, read-only operation that may access external data. The description adds the detail that it fetches a catalog for a specific store, implying the need for a store_id, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or response format, though with annotations covering the safety profile, this is acceptable.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by alternative tool suggestions. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying purpose and guiding tool selection.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter, a 100% schema description coverage, an output schema (which handles return values), and annotations covering safety, the description provides complete context for an agent to select and call the tool correctly. It tells what the tool does and when to use alternatives.

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 parameter 'store_id' is fully documented in the schema, including its source ('from /dominos/store-locator'). The description does not add further parameter details, but the baseline is 3; however, the description implicitly emphasizes the need for a store id by saying 'one Domino's store's catalog,' which reinforces the schema, earning a slight upgrade to 4.

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 verb ('Fetch') and resource ('one Domino's store's build-your-own catalog of sizes, crusts, toppings, sides, and cooking instructions'), making the purpose clear. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming dominos_menu and dominos_nutrition as alternatives for different tasks.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Use dominos_menu to browse items or dominos_nutrition for nutrition facts.' This provides clear routing guidance to sibling tools for different needs.

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