papajohns_deals

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 enumerates the exact fields each offer carries (redemption code, title, description, price, regular price, artwork, deal-builder link) and discloses the national placeholder behavior. This is more than a tautological restatement and helps an agent predict results.

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 three sentences, purpose-led, and each sentence adds distinct value: what it lists, what each offer contains, and how to supply the store ID plus the national exception. There is mild redundancy between the first and second sentence ('list' and 'returns'), but no wasted structure.

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 simple read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the geographical scope, the store_id ingestion method, the return composition, and the quirk about national placeholders. An agent has enough to decide when to call it and what to do with 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already well documented ('Restaurant id from... Omit for national promotions'). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by noting promotions are store-specific and that the national response consists of placeholders that are omitted, which explains why store_id matters without new syntax details.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'List a Papa John's restaurant's current promotions.' The second sentence clarifies US/Canada scope and the return type, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like papajohns_menu, papajohns_store, and papajohns_nearby.

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 to pass a store_id from GET /papajohns/store or GET /papajohns/nearby and explains that promotions are store-specific. It also notes that national responses are largely placeholders and omitted, giving clear context for when to pass the parameter, though it does not name alternative tools when not to use the tool.

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