papajohns_colombia_menu

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool pages through the full catalog before returning, guaranteeing a complete response rather than a partial one. It also mentions the currency is COP and not comparable to other markets, adding safety context. It doesn't cover all possible behaviors (e.g., performance, error handling), but provides meaningful transparency.

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 detailed but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose before explicate details. It introduces the four axes, the independent platform, and the completeness guarantee in a logical order. While not as short as possible, it uses each sentence to add value without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The description is complete for a menu-fetching tool with no output schema. It explains the response content (priced SKU variants across axes), the currency, the completeness of the response due to full pagination, and the differentiation from other markets. An agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing to inspect the schema further.

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%—both parameters (category and include_variants) have descriptive text in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning about these parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It doesn't explain how to use them together or any additional nuances, so it meets the baseline for full 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get the Papa John's Colombia priced menu (COP)') and clearly distinguishes it from other markets by noting it is independent of the six markets behind /papajohns/intl/menu and of Peru and El Salvador. This makes it unambiguous which tool to use for Colombia and separates it from siblings like papajohns_peru_menu and papajohns_intl_menu.

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 contrasts with other market menu tools, implying this is for Colombia specifically. It mentions the independence from intl and other markets, which gives context for when to select this over alternatives. However, it doesn't explicitly state 'use when you need Colombia prices' as a directive, so it's clear but not fully prescriptive.

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