papajohns_intl_deals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It makes the read-only list nature clear via "List" and "Returns," and it discloses a meaningful filtering behavior: "Offers that upstream has marked inactive are omitted rather than returned as live." It does not cover pagination or error behavior, but for a simple list operation the core behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 carry all the essential information with no filler: scope, markets, dispatch modes, returned fields, and filtering behavior. The main action and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, making it easy for an agent to scan and classify.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description adequately compensates by listing the returned fields (headline product, description, artwork, weekdays, start/end dates). It also clarifies the filtering behavior. For a low-complexity two-parameter list tool this is largely complete, though exact response shape and pagination are not specified.

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%, and both parameters already have descriptive enum values with mapping (pj_delivery = delivery, in_store = pickup/dine-in). The description adds the prose context of the six markets and the delivery/pickup distinction, but it does not meaningfully extend what the schema already documents, so the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "List Papa John's active promotions (international)." It then narrows scope precisely to six named markets and two dispatch methods, and the final sentence clarifies that inactive offers are filtered out. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like papajohns_deals or papajohns_intl_offer.

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 gives clear context for when the tool applies: when the agent needs currently running promotions in one of the six international markets, for delivery or pickup. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the international scope and the active-promotion framing make the intended use unambiguous.

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