dominos_customization

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains what is returned (grouped categories, attributes, cooking instructions) and also mentions error behavior (unknown store id returns 404) and cost characteristics (no additional upstream request). This is highly transparent and goes beyond a basic read operation.

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 long but every sentence adds value: it lists content, grouping, attributes, cooking instructions, and related endpoints. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then details. It could be slightly more concise, but the complexity of the return data justifies the length.

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 there is no output schema, the description must explain return values, and it does so extensively: it details the types of items (sizes, crusts, toppings, sides), attributes (code, name, description, flags), cooking instructions, and grouping. It also covers error handling and where to get store ids. This is complete for an agent to understand what the tool returns and how to use it.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter documentation (store_id description: 'Domino's store id, from /dominos/store-locator'). The description adds no additional semantic meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as format or validation rules. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3 and the description doesn't elevate it.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving a Domino's store's build-your-own customization catalog, with details on what is included (sizes, crusts, toppings, sides, cooking instructions). It is specific about the resource and output content. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling dominos_menu, but the focus on customization is implicit.

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 provides useful context, such as that store ids come from /dominos/store-locator and that it reads the same menu response as GET /dominos/menu (so no extra request). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like dominos_menu, nor does it give exclusion criteria. It's implied by the customization focus but not stated.

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