jimmy_johns_store

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does a strong job: it discloses that the main site is behind a bot challenge that returns HTTP 200, and that this family intentionally reads a separate locator subdomain. This is valuable gotcha-level context beyond a simple 'get' statement, though it does not cover error handling or what happens if the locator itself is blocked.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return fields, then the path source, then the bot-challenge caveat and menu-data alternatives. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, fields, path source, and an important environmental caveat about the bot challenge. It lacks edge-case details (invalid paths, error behavior), but those are minor given the tool's simplicity and the strong contextual framing.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes 'path' as 'Store path from a /jimmy-johns/sitemap entry'. The description largely repeats this by saying 'Store paths come from GET /jimmy-johns/sitemap', adding no new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.

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 one Jimmy John's store's detail', and enumerates the exact return fields (name, postal address, phone, coordinates, cuisine description, opening hours). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like jimmy_johns_sitemap (which provides paths) and jimmy_johns_menu (which provides menus).

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 states that store paths come from GET /jimmy-johns/sitemap, telling the agent how to obtain the required parameter, and routes menu-related queries to GET /jimmy-johns/nearby and GET /jimmy-johns/menu. It does not explicitly contrast with jimmy_johns_nearby for store discovery, but the sitemap-path dependency and menu alternative are clear and useful.

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