jimmy_johns_modifiers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the return shape (a recursive customization tree), the types of choices (size, bread, ingredient options with extra/regular/light/none), and that each choice includes price and calorie delta. It also explains the nesting behavior. It does not mention error handling or side effects, but for a read-only lookup tool, the behavior is well 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 reasonably concise, opening with the primary action and then elaborating on the return structure. It uses clear terms and avoids filler. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but effectively communicates the recursive nature without being redundant.

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, the description fully explains what the tool returns and how the parameter is obtained. It covers the structure and nesting, making it possible for an agent to interpret the response correctly. It does not mention edge cases (e.g., invalid product_id), but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the schema's coverage.

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 already provides a clear description for product_id ('Product id from a /jimmy-johns/menu product'), and the tool description reinforces this by stating the source explicitly. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds value by confirming the parameter's origin and its role in selecting a product for customization.

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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('one Jimmy John's menu product's customization options'), and differentiates from sibling tools like jimmy_johns_menu (which presumably returns the menu) by focusing on customization. It also names the specific types of customization (size, bread, ingredients) and their attributes, making the tool's intent unmistakable.

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 tells the agent that product_id comes from GET /jimmy-johns/menu, providing a clear prerequisite and source for the parameter. It implicitly distinguishes this from the menu tool (which would list products) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The guidance is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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