papajohns_india_stores

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

No annotations are provided, but the description is a read-only listing operation, clearly safe. It mentions the return fields and channel breakdown, but doesn't disclose pagination, rate limits, or any potential errors, which are not critical for a simple list tool.

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 are compact and front-load the core purpose and return data. The later sentences add routing context and parameter clarification. Slightly more than minimal but each sentence adds value.

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 list tool with optional single parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, data returned, and relationship to menus. It could mention if there are any prerequisites or usage limits, but those are not obvious gaps for this type of tool.

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% (single optional channel_id parameter with description). The description does not add beyond the schema, but the schema already explains the parameter values, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 lists Papa John's India restaurants with specific details (address, phone, coordinates, opening hours per channel), and explicitly scopes to India market. It distinguishes from other papajohns_* sibling tools by naming alternatives for US/Canada.

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 mentions that store IDs from this endpoint are keyed to the menu availability filter, and names the alternative tools for US/Canada stores. This gives clear context on when to use this tool versus siblings.

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