papajohns_elsalvador_menu

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the data structure (price matrix for pizzas, single prices for sides) and the independence of the endpoint, but does not explicitly state read-only nature, side effects, or any limitations. The caveat about restaurant selection revealing further items is a behavioral nuance that adds value. Overall, it provides some transparency but not exhaustive.

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 moderately long but each sentence contributes meaning: the purpose, the price matrix structure, the independence from other markets, and a caveat about restaurant-specific items. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, and the structure is logical. It could be trimmed slightly but remains concise for the complexity involved.

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 and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the menu contents, the price structure, the independence from other endpoints, and the caveat about restaurant selection. The parameter is fully described in the schema, so the agent has what it needs to call the tool correctly. The description could mention return format but it is not critical for a menu fetch.

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 full coverage for the single optional `category` parameter, including its description and allowed values. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, this scores 3.

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 tool retrieves the Papa John's El Salvador menu with prices in USD. It specifies the resource (menu) and geographic scope, and explicitly differentiates it from other country menus by noting its independence from the intl endpoint and Colombia/Peru. The verb 'Get' plus the resource makes the 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 provides clear usage context: it states El Salvador runs its own ordering platform and has its own endpoint, implying this tool should be used for El Salvador rather than the intl/menu or Colombia/Peru tools. It also notes that the national menu may reveal additional items after restaurant selection, guiding scope expectations. It does not explicitly name alternative tools but the distinction is clear.

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