papajohns_intl_ingredients

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits like side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or read-only guarantees. It only describes what the response contains and where menu ids come from, but never states that the operation is safe or read-only, and offers no behavioral safety context. The tool name and 'Get' imply reading, but the description itself doesn't disclose the expected operational footprint.

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 a small paragraph (four sentences) where each sentence adds value: purpose, contents, ingredient attributes, and what the response includes. There is no redundancy; however it is not the extreme two-sentence economy of top-tier tools, so 4 is appropriate.

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 read-only catalog tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the scope, output content, and the prerequisite for obtaining menu_id. It does not discuss edge cases or error handling, but these are not critical for a basic GET-style tool. The description is sufficiently complete without needing to elaborate on return formatting.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds modest context: it spells out the six markets (already in the schema's enum) and mentions that ingredients report a family (meat, vegetable, base sauce), which partially maps to the 'category' parameter. It does not materially exceed the schema's own descriptions, so it does not earn higher than 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a Papa John's menu's ingredient catalog (international).' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling menu tools by focusing on ingredients (toppings, sauces, cheeses) and naming the six markets. It also enumerates specific fields returned, making its 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 gives clear context: the tool covers international markets and requires a menu_id from a specific endpoint ('GET /papajohns/intl/stores'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the scope and prerequisite are clear, which is enough for an agent to select it appropriately among the many Papa John's tools.

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