papajohns_intl_product

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the record carries no price because pricing is per restaurant, which is a key behavioral trait. It also explains the source of product IDs. It doesn't explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, but the description's framing ('Get one... Returns...') implies a read operation. It could add more about error cases or rate limits, but the disclosed scoping and data-absence behavior are valuable.

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 single, information-dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then lists markets, then details the return contents, then clarifies the pricing exclusion and ID source. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it states what is returned, what is not returned, and where to get the missing data and the input IDs. It doesn't describe the exact response structure, but with no output schema and a straightforward catalog record, the description covers the essential context an agent needs.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining that product_id comes from GET /papajohns/intl/menu and that the record has no price. It also lists the six markets, which reinforces the market parameter's enum values. This goes beyond the schema's terse descriptions.

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 retrieves one Papa John's product's catalog record for international markets, listing the six markets and the specific data fields (description, imagery, dietary markers, customization rules). It distinguishes itself from the menu endpoint by explicitly noting it returns no prices and directing to GET /papajohns/intl/menu for pricing.

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 states when to use this tool (to get a product's catalog record) and when not to (for prices, use GET /papajohns/intl/menu). It also tells the agent where product IDs come from, which is essential usage guidance. This is clear and actionable.

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