papajohns_menu_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the response includes the product group's customization axes, category, and section, and that the price is store-specific. It does not mention behavior for invalid SKUs, network errors, or response format (though no output schema exists). The description adds value beyond the schema but lacks details on error handling or exact response structure.

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, dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose (Get one menu item with options) and then details the response contents and parameter behavior. Every sentence adds value, and it is concise without being overly long.

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?

The tool has only 2 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, but the description explains return contents in reasonable detail (sizes, crusts, preparation instructions, category, section). It could be more explicit about the exact return structure or edge cases (e.g., if item is not found), but for a single-item lookup, this is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 (sku and store_id) are documented in the schema. The description adds meaning by noting that store_id affects the price (store-specific vs national default) and that SKUs come from GET /papajohns/menu internet. This is helpful but does not add significant additional semantics beyond the schema; the baseline for full coverage is 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 clearly states that the tool retrieves a single Papa John's menu item with its options, including sizes, crusts, and preparation instructions. It also explains the return contents (category, section) and the optional store_id for price. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like papajohns_menu (which likely lists items) and papajohns_intl_product (which handles international items).

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 tells the agent when to use this tool: when you need a specific menu item by SKU. It also notes that omitting store_id returns the national default price, guiding the agent on optional parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like papajohns_menu (listing all items) or papajohns_nutrition (for nutritional info), but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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