dominos_menu

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does a good job: it discloses normalization into flat categories, stable code/name paths, per-item fields, purchasable variants with prices/IDs, and a 404 on unknown store IDs. It could go further on data freshness or pricing context, but the key behaviors are adequately disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then efficiently details necessary output structure, store-locator dependency, and error behavior. Minor redundancy exists in saying 'full structured menu' and then 'full menu', but no sentence is waste.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough for an AI agent to call it confidently: it specifies output structure, variant data, pricing, category paths, where to get the store_id, and the error case. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

There is only one parameter and the input schema already provides 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that store_id is a Domino's store ID from the store locator, but adds little new semantics beyond what the schema already says.

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 first sentence is specific: 'Get one Domino's store's full structured menu.' It names the verb, the resource, and the exact scope (one store), and the detailed return-shape description makes it easy to distinguish from store, nutrition, coupon, and locator siblings even without naming them.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you need a single store's full structured menu. It explicitly tells the caller that store IDs come from GET /dominos/store-locator, which is direct prerequisite guidance. It does not name alternatives or point out 'when not' to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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