papajohns_india_menu_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains the return structure (sizes, crusts, toppings, sauces) and clarifies the meaning of base_price and half_price flags, which is key behavioral information. It doesn't cover potential error cases or pagination, but for a single-item fetch, it provides adequate 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 informative without being bloated. It front-loads the core purpose, then details the option tree and pricing semantics. Each sentence contributes, and the structure is logical. Slightly longer than minimal but justified given the complexity of the return data.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains input (how to get item_id) and output structure (options with prices). It covers the special flags and market scope. It could mention what happens if an invalid id is provided, but overall it's complete enough for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100% (item_id has a description), so baseline is 3. The tool description adds the discovery method (from menu endpoint) but that is already present in the schema. It doesn't add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it stays at baseline.

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 fetches one Papa John's India menu item with its full customization tree, explicitly naming the market (India) and the returned structure. It distinguishes from sibling tools like papajohns_menu_item or papajohns_intl_product by emphasizing the India-specific scope and the complete option hierarchy.

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?

It specifies that this is for the India market only and instructs to use GET /papajohns/india/menu to discover item ids, which is a direct usage prerequisite. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives for other markets, but the 'India market only' clause effectively excludes them. It could be stronger by mentioning sibling tools, but it's sufficient.

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