dominos_store

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of transparency. It thoroughly discloses what the response contains (hours, wait times, availability, minimums) and notes error behavior ('An unknown store id returns 404'). It does not explicitly state read-only semantics, but the verb 'Get' implies non-mutating behavior. Slight gap is the absence of mention of any authentication or rate-limit constraints, which are not assumed from the context.

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 lengthy but every sentence serves a purpose—the first sentence states the core function and distinction, the middle enumerates specific data fields returned, and the final sentences address id sourcing and error handling. It is structured logically with key information front-loaded, though it could be condensed slightly without losing value.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields in detail (weekly hours, per-service hours, wait windows, status, availability, minimums). It also explains how to obtain the required parameter and the error case. For a single-parameter, read-only endpoint, this provides complete operational context for an agent to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 provides a 100% description for store_id, and the description adds crucial context by specifying the source of valid ids (GET /dominos/store-locator) and the consequence of an invalid id (404). This goes beyond the schema's basic type definition, giving the agent actionable guidance for obtaining and using the parameter.

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 action ('Get one Domino's store's full profile record') and specifies the resource (a single store's complete profile). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool /dominos/store-locator by noting it returns a richer record than the per-store summary, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 instructs that store ids come from GET /dominos/store-locator, establishing a clear workflow: first locate stores, then fetch details with this tool. It also contrasts with the store-locator's summary, indicating when to prefer this detailed endpoint over the summary version. No ambiguity remains about when to use it.

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