papajohns_intl_offer

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose what is returned (offer composition, price, steps, products, surcharges, ingredient rules). However, it does not mention side effects (likely none since this is a read operation), error behavior, or edge cases like invalid offer_id or market. The read-only nature is implied by 'Returns' but not explicitly stated.

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 and then details the output structure and provenance of the offer_id. The one redundancy is repeating the market list that already appears in the schema parameter description, but that's minor. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Without an output schema, the description details the return structure, which is essential for an agent to know what to expect. It covers both parameters' provenance and scope. The main gap is lack of error conditions (e.g., what happens when offer_id is invalid) and no explicit statement of read-only safety, but given the tool's specificity, this is adequate.

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 both parameters (market and offer_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds the market list in the schema itself (not the description), but adds context for offer_id by explaining where it comes from. It doesn't add much beyond what the schema provides, 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 what the tool does: it returns the composition of one Papa John's promotional offer in one of six international markets. It names the specific markets, describes what fields the output contains (price, choice steps, eligible products with surcharges, ingredient rules), and references the source endpoint GET /papajohns/intl/deals. This distinguishes it from siblings like papajohns_intl_deals (list) and papajohns_intl_menu/product.

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 explains that offer ids come from the offer_id field on GET /papajohns/intl/deals, giving an explicit prerequisite for use. It also implicitly distinguishes this from list endpoints and product endpoints by describing what this tool returns. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it compared to papajohns_intl_product or papajohns_intl_menu, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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