dominos_nutrition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reads live data, not a cache, and that each call creates and discards an anonymous cart server-side, making it slower than sibling endpoints. It also notes error behavior for invalid inputs. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema. It doesn't mention rate limits or exact response shape, but the live-cart disclosure is valuable.

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 a single dense paragraph but every sentence earns its place: the core purpose, the two usage modes, the parameter coupling rules, the live-cache behavior, and error conditions. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource. It could be slightly more scannable with line breaks, but it is not bloated.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational details: what it returns, how to invoke both modes, parameter coupling, performance characteristics, and error behavior. It doesn't describe the exact return format (e.g., whether calories are a number or object), but the description explicitly says it returns calorie information, which is likely sufficient for an agent to select and call the tool.

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 adds value by explaining the relationship between parameters: size and base must be given together, toppings requires both, and product_code can be either a named item or a build-your-own base (e.g., S_PIZZA). It also clarifies that for named items, only store_id and product_code are needed. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get calorie information for one Domino's product configuration.' It then clearly distinguishes the two modes (named/fixed menu item vs. build-your-own pizza) and references the sibling tool dominos_menu for product codes. This is unambiguous and differentiates the tool from related endpoints like dominos_coupons or dominos_customization.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: for a named/fixed menu item, provide only store_id and product_code; for a build-your-own pizza, also provide size, base, and toppings. It also states constraints (size and base must be given together; toppings requires both) and error conditions (unknown product code or invalid combination returns an error). This is strong usage guidance.

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