papajohns_intl_deals

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It explains that only active promotions are returned, lists the fields each promotion carries, and explicitly says inactive offers are omitted rather than returned as live. It does not cover error handling or rate limits, but for a simple listing tool this is adequate.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first clause states the core purpose, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct piece of useful information (scope, result fields, filtering behavior). There is no redundant or verifiable filler.

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 the tool's simplicity (two required params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is essentially complete. It tells the agent what happens, what output fields to expect, and that inactive promotions are excluded. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 input schema already documents both parameters fully, including the enum options for market and dispatch_method. The description mostly restates those values ('six markets', 'delivery or pickup') without adding new semantic meaning, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage 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 states a specific action and resource: 'List Papa John's active promotions (international).' It also enumerates the exact markets and channels, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. The plural 'promotions' and international scope help differentiate from sibling tools like papajohns_intl_offer, even without naming them.

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 contextual guidance: use it to list active promotions for one of the six international markets and for either delivery or pickup. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like papajohns_deals or papajohns_intl_offer or specify when not to use those, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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